It appears that AZ is going to pass another law that will deny birth certificates for babies born to illegal immigrant parents in AZ. "Anchor babies" is what AZ government calls them because when illegal immigrants have a baby in the US it forces the US to recognize them as US citizens and so they cannot be deported. This bill will end that, hopefully forcing illegals to "pull up anchor and leave".

Full article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100612/us_time/08599199606400

Before anyone starts bad mouthing AZ laws check out Mexicos laws concerning illegal immigrants:

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
* * * * * * * *
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
* * * * * * * *
3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
* * * * * * * *
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are
here.
* * * * * * * *
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.
* * * * * * * *
6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food
stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will
be deported.
* * * * * * * *
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least
equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
* * * * * * * *
8. If foreigners come here and buy land... Options will be restricted.
Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens
naturally born into this country.
* * * * * * * *
9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a
foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his
policies. These will lead to deportation.
* * * * * * * *
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted
&, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All
assets will be taken from you.

Good to see ONE of the 50 states growing a pair.

I don't consider Yahoo to be an authoritative source on Mexican law.

Additionally, the proposed legislation is a significant departure from past jurisprudence regarding the nature of American citizenship.

Good to know that they finally found a pair of:



Well, I am not suprised. At the very least Arizona is forcing the federal government to deal with illegal immigration. Arizona's legal population has grown tired of illegal immigration and wants it out. Therefore they wish to push people out by forcing out one of the legal ways one can become a citizen in the United States.

I personally do not like this law, but if it is passed, so long as it passes constitutional hurdles, it will be the law.

And I do not care what Mexico allows. I live in America, and what we do here is important most of all.

I though US law was that a baby born in the US was entitled to US citizenship?

In fact I read of a case of a British professor one of whose children was born while he was working at a US university, and on return to the UK there was a problem because the American child should have been sent back when his visa expired. The father had forgotten to register the birth with the UK consulate so the child did not have UK citizenship. It was all worked out though.

Kilkrazy wrote:I though US law was that a baby born in the US was entitled to US citizenship?

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

Citizenship


The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all parts of the world. America values the contributions of immigrants who continue to enrich this country and preserve its legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity.

Deciding to become a U.S. citizen is one of the most important decisions in an individual’s life. If you decide to apply to become a U.S. citizen, you will be showing your commitment to the United States and your loyalty to its Constitution. In return, you are rewarded with all the rights and privileges that are part of U.S. citizenship.

You may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth. Individuals who are born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and individuals born in certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States are citizens at birth. Also, individuals born outside the United States may be citizens at birth if their parent or parents were citizens at the time of birth and other requirements are met.

Additionally, you may become a U.S. citizen after birth either through your parents, known as “derived” or “acquired” citizenship, or by applying for naturalization on your own.

For information about becoming a permanent resident (green card holder) or petitioning for family members, see “Green Card” or “Family” links on the home page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_within_the_United_States

Birth within the United States
Main article: Birthright citizenship in the United States of America
Main article: Jus soli
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[5] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[6] A birth certificate issued by a U.S. state or territorial government is evidence of citizenship, and is usually accepted as proof of citizenship.

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution, if that person is:

Born in the United States
Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States
Has parents that are in the United States for business

dogma wrote:I don't consider Yahoo to be an authoritative source on Mexican law.

Additionally, the proposed legislation is a significant departure from past jurisprudence regarding the nature of American citizenship.

It was from a user who commented and put those in his comments. I'm sure 5 minute Google or Wiki search would reveal all immigration laws of Mexico (after all it is public knowledge that is archived publicly). Even the law libraries or uni libraries would probably have books on Mexican immigration law.

So long as it's done constitutionally (oh, kinda like SB1070) than it's all good (though I'm still of the mind that OUR constitution shouldn't do jack and gak for ILLEGALS but that's my opinion). The fact that illegals are having kids to be lawfully kept in the country is an obvious attempt at leeching off our welfare programs because now they qualify because their child is now a US citizen.

Sorry, epic fail that social program is.

Fateweaver wrote:The fact that illegals are having kids to be lawfully kept in the country is an obvious attempt at leeching off our welfare programs because now they qualify because their child is now a US citizen.

Actually, its an attempt to force naturalization. The US cannot deport its own citizens, and therefore cannot force the child to return to Mexico. Unless the state intends to make the child an orphan, the parents are granted tacit citizenship. Since citizens pay taxes, there is no 'leeching' going on.

Fateweaver wrote:
Sorry, epic fail that social program is.

Unemployment benefits are a form of welfare.

I don't see why that's a problem.

Here in Ireland they passed a law a few years back to prevent the exact same thing. Here, unless one or more (Can't even say both anymore ) of a child born in Ireland's Parents are EU Citizens, then the Child does NOT automatically gain the right to be an Irish Citizen.

Denying people born here citizenship is unconstitutional. I still think its a good idea, but it won't work. Good to see someone is finally trying to get the illegals out though.

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Denying people born here citizenship is unconstitutional. I still think its a good idea, but it won't work. Good to see someone is finally trying to get the illegals out though.

Can we have a source for this? Like, say, the line in said Constitution that says "Should people illegally in the country pop out a spawn, they get to leech our welfare forevers?"

Nothing is mentioned about parents, we didn't have this problem back then. It simply says that anyone born on US soil is a US citizen. I mean as far as I know we legally could deport the parents, but that would be long and messy

We could Constitutionally deport the parents, and there is a significant history of parents being separated from their children as a result. There is also a significant history of expedited naturalization due to the presence of children, so its really a case based thing.

In any case, if this law passes, it will be immediately struck down for being unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution wrote:Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html

Excluding the 2nd amendment, why do Republicans hate the constitution?

In practice, everyone hates the Constitution when it countermands their political positions. Which, truthfully, is much of the reason for its existence.

So why doesn't Arizona just start Deporting parents and giving children the choice to go with them or stay in the US? Then they can do whatever they want when they grow up.

Might be a dick move RaI, but very much RaW.

Fallen668 wrote:

The U.S. Constitution wrote:Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html

Excluding the 2nd amendment, why do Republicans hate the constitution?

Largely because they don't actually know what's in it.

I don't get why Arizona thinks the US Constitution doesn't apply to them.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1996064,00.html

Time is also running the story- so yahoos credibility isnt an issue here.

Living in Arizona, and seeing first hand how our system is exploited I hope theres a way to make this bill work.

With several other states drafting thier own versions of our SB 1070, it doesnt look like the Feds are going to be able to stop it from being enacted. Obama actually seemed rather meek/hushed after meeting with our governor a few weeks ago- where as before the meeting he was rather lippy and judgemental about the subject. Might as well push through the legislation while theres momentum to do so.

Arizona is simply using incredibly loud opinions, to try and force action from the federal government. Staying in the news, is just as important as getting into the news in the first place.

Arizona: Trying to make headlines because they have an opinion... GODDAMIT!

Gwar! wrote:So why doesn't Arizona just start Deporting parents and giving children the choice to go with them or stay in the US? Then they can do whatever they want when they grow up.

Might be a dick move RaI, but very much RaW.

I'm sure they make the effort, though not everyone believes it's the correct course of action and most logical reviews of case by case situations find favor with the naturalization of the parents over their forced deportation. It's largely an issue of case by case enforcement, and unconstitutional mass efforts to address the issue of illegal immigration via mechanisms like deportation are just indicative of americas unwillingness to realistically address the causal issues behind mass illegal migration. Until the immigration process itself is renovated to be the least bit sane programs like this will continue to arise or be struck down, and they will always have a highly negligible effect on migrant populations and the prevalence of the issue.

Gwar! wrote:So why doesn't Arizona just start Deporting parents and giving children the choice to go with them or stay in the US? Then they can do whatever they want when they grow up.

Might be a dick move RaI, but very much RaW.

Minors are not permitted to make legally binding choices.

Also, by deporting the parents Arizona would be creating a mechanism for the addition to children to the social services rolls.

So instead of having three people leech welfare, they have 1 child in an orphanage?

I wonder which costs less money actually...

Gwar! wrote:So instead of having three people leech welfare, they have 1 child in an orphanage?

I wonder which costs less money actually...

Once parents become naturalized through having a child (and going through the process) they start paying taxes. Thus they aren't leeching. If social services are aware of an immigrant couple that has had a child there aren't a large number of options, deportation of the parents has always been one of them. It's simply one of the poor options given the significantly increased cost to the state of state foster care over parent raising.

How do illegal immigrants benefit from social services?

I understand this to be a sticky subject, but I can't understand many of the assertions made about illegal immigrants.

Wrexasaur wrote:How do illegal immigrants benefit from social services?

I understand this to be a sticky subject, but I can't understand many of the assertions made about illegal immigrants.

They get emergency hospital care, but thats about the extent of it. People that advocate reducing the number of people "leeching" social services are usually not particularly studied on the subject matter itself.

Gwar! wrote:So instead of having three people leech welfare, they have 1 child in an orphanage?

I wonder which costs less money actually...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37596510/ns/business-personal_finance/

Assume the child becomes adopted by a rich U.S. family will cost $475,680.

http://www.startribune.com/business/96146184.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUdcOy_ncKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

$286,000 for a middle income family, and $206,000 for a lower income family.

Gwar! wrote:So instead of having three people leech welfare, they have 1 child in an orphanage?

I wonder which costs less money actually...

Illegal immigrants do not have access to welfare.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:How do illegal immigrants benefit from social services?

I understand this to be a sticky subject, but I can't understand many of the assertions made about illegal immigrants.

They get emergency hospital care, but thats about the extent of it. People that advocate reducing the number of people "leeching" social services are usually not particularly studied on the subject matter itself.

"Leeching" could also mean reducing the waste and mismanagement generated by the system. People will try to take advantage of the system and people who run the system must find a way to save money. A program can be run at a loss for some time, but eventually the funding will have to cease at some point.

You stop illegal immigration, and the "anchor" baby problem solves itself - no law required

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:You stop illegal immigration, and the "anchor" baby problem solves itself - no law required

Thats sort of a simplistic opinion on the issue.

Its impossible to fully abate the flow of illegal immigrants.

Wasn't the law allowing infants born on american soil put in place around the time of the civil war to allow the ex-slaves to be considered american citizens? If so, we need to really look at that law and maybe remove it.

Personally I hate illegal immigration and its supporters. The whole "Well, they're just trying to better their familys' lives." argument especially. Why can't they get the part that they are ILLEGAL? I can't very well use that argument to defend a drug dealer now can I?

Also, illegal immigrants really have no rights seeing as though they aren't citizens of the united states. So, how can illegal immigrants protest in the streets without being deported or risking deportation? That's complete bull in my opinion.

Oh, and if you can point out a law that allows non-citizens the rights of citizens please point it out to me. Seriously, I mean this last part in the nicest tone possible.

halonachos wrote:Wasn't the law allowing infants born on american soil put in place around the time of the civil war to allow the ex-slaves to be considered american citizens? If so, we need to really look at that law and maybe remove it.

Personally I hate illegal immigration and its supporters. The whole "Well, they're just trying to better their familys' lives." argument especially. Why can't they get the part that they are ILLEGAL? I can't very well use that argument to defend a drug dealer now can I?

Yes, you can. Illegal is not tacit to immoral.

That principal is actually one which underlies the founding of America.

halonachos wrote:
Also, illegal immigrants really have no rights seeing as though they aren't citizens of the united states.

No, that's incorrect. In most cases American rights are contingent upon humanity, not citizenship.

halonachos wrote:
So, how can illegal immigrants protest in the streets without being deported or risking deportation? That's complete bull in my opinion.

Why are you assuming that illegals are the people protesting?

halonachos wrote:
Oh, and if you can point out a law that allows non-citizens the rights of citizens please point it out to me. Seriously, I mean this last part in the nicest tone possible.

You would first have to point out the law which indicates that people are only to be thought of as US citizens.

Wasn't the law allowing infants born on american soil put in place around the time of the civil war to allow the ex-slaves to be considered american citizens? If so, we need to really look at that law and maybe remove it.

You could make the same argument for the right to bear arms and the concept of militias being similarly outdated.

Personally I hate illegal immigration and its supporters. The whole "Well, they're just trying to better their familys' lives." argument especially. Why can't they get the part that they are ILLEGAL? I can't very well use that argument to defend a drug dealer now can I?

Very few people support the illegal aspect of immigration, and most that defend migrants either do it out of some sort of humanism or an actual understanding of the sheer lunacy of American immigration laws concerning migrants from south of the border. When the immigration list has wait times of upwards of ten years then it's clearly broken and worthless. If illegal immigrants are illegal because an utterly dysfunctional legalization process then it logically is going to breed a considerable amount of sympathy.

Also, illegal immigrants really have no rights seeing as though they aren't citizens of the united states. So, how can illegal immigrants protest in the streets without being deported or risking deportation? That's complete bull in my opinion.

Migrant protests aren't entirely composed of illegals, thats the kind of gak you usually only hear in conservative spam newsletters.

Oh, and if you can point out a law that allows non-citizens the rights of citizens please point it out to me. Seriously, I mean this last part in the nicest tone possible.

There is considerable debate about whether the bill of rights pertains to all people, and not just US citizens. Taking it entirely as written it would imply everyone, and historically that was quite likely the intent given the treatment of english soldiers in the war for independence and the general philosophical trends of the age. It was a more civilized time in many respects.

I'm not saying that all migrant protestors... yadda, yadda.

All I said was that specifically, ILLEGAL immigrants shouldn't have the right to protest. I never said migrants, conservative tv shows, etc.

Actually the treatment of english soldiers was only due to the fact that they had colonials as prisoners as well. It wasn't civilized, it was a primitive version of "equally assured destruction".

And no, I can't compare the right to bear arms, etc to the law allowing the children of slaves to be citizens. I would argue that the militias and 2nd amendment are much, much broader in use than a law that details the specifics of a person being born in the country gaining citizenship automatically.

Most of what I've seen, along with thousands of others, is that people come into the country illegally as a way to better the lives of their family.

If I sold drugs so that my child could go to college, then I should get the same support, because I was only bettering the life of my child.

An illegal act is an illegal act and deserves punishment.

All I said was that specifically, ILLEGAL immigrants shouldn't have the right to protest. I never said migrants, conservative tv shows, etc.

Well we don't hire psychics or magicians as cops any more.

Actually the treatment of english soldiers was only due to the fact that they had colonials as prisoners as well. It wasn't civilized, it was a primitive version of "equally assured destruction".

They were also treated better than the writ of the law, and some famous "founding fathers" took exception to their ill treatment on notable occasions.

And no, I can't compare the right to bear arms, etc to the law allowing the children of slaves to be citizens

Sure you can, you just don't want too because it would either delegitimize your belief or cast your opinion into doubt.

I would argue that the militias and 2nd amendment are much, much broader in use than a law that details the specifics of a person being born in the country gaining citizenship automatically.

And I would argue that a militia is a simplistic concept and that it's not broad at all, just as the concept of the location of birth is no less important in ensuring protections against the tyranny of governance.

Most of what I've seen, along with thousands of others, is that people come into the country illegally as a way to better the lives of their family.

If I sold drugs so that my child could go to college, then I should get the same support, because I was only bettering the life of my child.

This is the part of your post where you make a second attempt at implying that illegal immigrants are here to sell drugs or that entering a country illegally is tacit to selling prohibited substances. It's also the part where you're argument breaks down. By that same logic I guess speeders and drug dealers are the same. Murderers too. Lets throw out the belief that different things are different because they are different. Everyone goes to jail. America is fixed.

An illegal act is an illegal act and deserves punishment.

So you would be for the beating and possible lynching of black slaves that fled from their masters in the good old days? I mean, if it's all the same. The law is paramount after all, it's not like there could be such a thing as laws that are wrongly conceived or enforced!

Theres this thing called 'Identity theft' thats pretty easy these days- and thats one of the biggest routes from which they are getting access to welfare, social security and other programs- fraudulent IDs are also how many of them are attaining work- this is why SB 1070 is going to be useful as it gives law enforcement the ability to really determine the validity of documaent carried by people that are in questionable situations.

Its not as cut & dry as a yes/no answer as you'd think either. A good freind of mine works for Az DES, and since they currently cant ask for citizenship paperwork- their ability to exclude or include someone based on nationality is often limited. So alot of happy illegals make it out the door once they learn the tricks of the system.

When I was on an ambulance crew in the early 90's, working out of Sierra Vista, we really hated the calls for pregneant women along side the road. They''d cross over right before they were gonna pop, and then sit on the side of a busy road til someone helped them. It was those times I really wished we could have taken them to a mexican hospital or clinic for such a blatant misuse of our laws. The moms never spoke english except to say, 'Hospital!! Baby!' And thats how they get on welfare, food stamps, and a several other free money deals.

halonachos wrote:
All I said was that specifically, ILLEGAL immigrants shouldn't have the right to protest. I never said migrants, conservative tv shows, etc.

Should we question all protesters as to the legality of their status?

halonachos wrote:Wasn't the law allowing infants born on american soil put in place around the time of the civil war to allow the ex-slaves to be considered american citizens? If so, we need to really look at that law and maybe remove it.

Personally I hate illegal immigration and its supporters. The whole "Well, they're just trying to better their familys' lives." argument especially. Why can't they get the part that they are ILLEGAL? I can't very well use that argument to defend a drug dealer now can I?

Also, illegal immigrants really have no rights seeing as though they aren't citizens of the united states. So, how can illegal immigrants protest in the streets without being deported or risking deportation? That's complete bull in my opinion.

Oh, and if you can point out a law that allows non-citizens the rights of citizens please point it out to me. Seriously, I mean this last part in the nicest tone possible.

What rights are you talking about?

As pointed out earlier, the law granting citizenship to people born in the US is the 14th amendment, and can't be overturned by any legislation, let alone state legislation. There are some compelling arguments to made to allow exceptions, but it would take a court challenge and it's doubtful that the Supreme Court would overturn 150 years of precedent.

Also, few, if any, constitutional rights are contingent on citizenship, or even legal entry to the united states. The actual legal reason is that the rights aren't rights granted to people, but actually limitations placed on the government. It's not that we have the right to free speech, it's that the government doesn't have the power to restrict it.

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:The fact that illegals are having kids to be lawfully kept in the country is an obvious attempt at leeching off our welfare programs because now they qualify because their child is now a US citizen.

Actually, its an attempt to force naturalization. The US cannot deport its own citizens, and therefore cannot force the child to return to Mexico. Unless the state intends to make the child an orphan, the parents are granted tacit citizenship. Since citizens pay taxes, there is no 'leeching' going on.

Fateweaver wrote:
Sorry, epic fail that social program is.

Unemployment benefits are a form of welfare.

Stop being purposely obtuse. You just love to jab at me with the "unemployment is welfare" stick. You know what forms of welfare I was talking about with my comment about welfare leeches and for as educated as you make yourself out to be you come off as an idiot in your knowledge of how unemployment works, either that or you are being ignorant on purpose just to be a dick. I'm beginning to think it's the latter.

Food stamps and MA and WIC ARE NOT the same level or caliber as unemployment benefits. The former I can go get any time I want so long as I qualify and generally gives me MORE benefits than straight up unemployment. The latter I have to HAVE held a job and gotten laid off (if I quit or get fired for any reason NO UI) in order to obtain. COBRA extended my health insurance benefits up to 18 months post-employment BUT I had to keep paying for the insurance. It wasn't SUDDENLY free for 18 months, I still had to spend the $120/month I was paying while I was working. BUT given I was getting such a small amount of UI I had to drop the insurance altogether.

Again, Dogma. You and Shuma like to attack my anti-welfare posts by using UI benefits as a counter-post. As I pointed out you know damn well the 2 aren't one in the same or even on the same level of "welfare". If I had wanted to during those 16 months I was unemployed I COULD have applied for actual food stamps and MA but I didn't as I didn't EARN those. I had to EARN the UI benefits I was getting. One is earned, one is not. The better of the 2 welfare programs is NOT earned welfare, hence IMO it is a program that should go away. Nobody should get something for nothing. Everyone should have to work for what they receive.

Fateweaver wrote:
Stop being purposely obtuse. You just love to jab at me with the "unemployment is welfare" stick. You know what forms of welfare I was talking about with my comment about welfare leeches and for as educated as you make yourself out to be you come off as an idiot in your knowledge of how unemployment works, either that or you are being ignorant on purpose just to be a dick. I'm beginning to think it's the latter.

I'm simply pointing out that you have benefited from a welfare program.

But no, I don't know what welfare programs you're talking about, as you never indicated which ones you intended to critique. I may have been able to make an inference based on your comments, but I am hesitant to do so as you seem to believe that illegal immigrants can easily claim welfare benefits. They cannot, so I'm not willing to expound on your seemingly frustrated remarks.

Fateweaver wrote:
Food stamps and MA and WIC ARE NOT the same level or caliber as unemployment benefits.

I really don't think we should be putting various form of welfare into an emotive hierarchy. I can understand how doing so might make you feel better, but it seems useless from the perspective of policy analysis.

Fateweaver wrote:
The former I can go get any time I want so long as I qualify and generally gives me MORE benefits than straight up unemployment.

In Minnesota you must have a gross annual income at or below 130% of the Federal poverty guideline in order to receive food support. The requirements for WIC are the same as those for food support, with the addition of bearing the responsibility for a child. Medical assistance requires that all non-elderly people of majority to share some of the financial burden of medical care.

Fateweaver wrote:
If I had wanted to during those 16 months I was unemployed I COULD have applied for actual food stamps and MA but I didn't as I didn't EARN those. I had to EARN the UI benefits I was getting.

There is no shame in taking any form of welfare. There is shame in abusing those programs, but if the aid really is needed then it isn't shameful to take it. However, no form of welfare is earned. If it were earned, it wouldn't be welfare. Unless you consider carrying a child, or earning less than a certain amount of money to be equivalent to 'earning' something.

Fateweaver wrote:
One is earned, one is not. The better of the 2 welfare programs is NOT earned welfare, hence IMO it is a program that should go away. Nobody should get something for nothing. Everyone should have to work for what they receive.

You were compensated for your employment by your employer. The state gave you money in order to facilitate your job search, and to allow you to sustain yourself between positions. Your prior work, while used as a requirement for eligibility, does not represent an action which established dessert.

I thought unemployment was closer to a transfer payment than welfare, with employers paying in a certain amount.

Unemployment is a something that "vests" after a certain length of time working, which is far closer to ownership and being earned than a welfare benefit which is provided based solely on one's current status. Unemployment is paid out based on a person's previous status.

I can tell you first hand from knowing a few illegals that a trick some use is to have a business of some type in Mexico. They work here under the table and send a little cash home to keep the business going and somehow use it as a means to stay here.
The business can be a box on a street corner with shirts on it and they call it a clothing store or what have you, but the pretense is that they have a business in Mexico, so aren't leaching from this country.
I personally know a guy that does this and he's a big ticket slime job that I've had run ins with before.

Polonius wrote:I thought unemployment was closer to a transfer payment than welfare, with employers paying in a certain amount.

Unemployment is a something that "vests" after a certain length of time working, which is far closer to ownership and being earned than a welfare benefit which is provided based solely on one's current status. Unemployment is paid out based on a person's previous status.

It is Polonius. Employers pay into the UI system, NOT your average working American. That is why not all employers offer unemployment benefits upon laying you off because it's not paid for by NON-EMPLOYERS. If it was than no employer could refuse you UI benefits. You also have to have left cleanly on your own. Get fired or quit? No UI. No matter what your reason for quitting the UI agency can refuse you benefits. You can appeal the decision but that means 4-6 more weeks of posturing and no money coming in.

130% below Federal minimum eh? I have friends in Mn that make $40k plus per year and were still able to get WIC. Last I heard poverty for a family of 4 is like $30k dollars (in that ballpark).

@Doogma. Keep thinking what you want. UI is earned because I had to be part of the tax-paying populace, work long enough to qualify and lose my job through no fault of my own. If you don't call earning that then I guess benefits like vacation time aren't earned either.

All welfare programs are at least partially funded through the payroll tax associated with FICA.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with the notion that unemployment is the only program based on past performance. As I understand it, things like food stamps and medical aid are provided to people based on their past or expected income. True, they can also be awarded on the basis of monthly income, but unemployment is comparable in that it is ultimately determined by current status; an employed person isn't going to receive unemployment.

It might differ state to state but here in Mn the MA/Foodstamp/WIC bums have it a lot better off than I had it. The difference is I had to actually have worked at some point in time, they didn't.

A single mom with infant kid gets MA meaning free care for her infant, she gets WIC meaning none of the foodstamp money (EBT dollars) has to go to baby food or anything like that since WIC covers it plus she would get around $400/month to cover things like gas and cigarettes and booze (things NOT covered by the EBT fund or WIC). Now kick the kids up to 3. WIC/MA/EBT still covers for all 3 kids but NOW she just got an increase to over $1k per month for gas, booze, cigs, drugs, whatever.

Welfare queens exist because all the essentials are provided by the government PLUS they get a monthly allotment of money for anything not covered. If everthing in life is paid for by the government you can take the $1k you get and buy a new car easily. Low income housing, tax breaks and even discounts on cable/internet and cell phones makes living better than your average family of 4 easier and more believable.

Fateweaver wrote:
It is Polonius. Employers pay into the UI system, NOT your average working American. That is why not all employers offer unemployment benefits upon laying you off because it's not paid for by NON-EMPLOYERS. If it was than no employer could refuse you UI benefits.

Employers cannot refuse you unemployment insurance. Certain jobs are exempt from the Federal Unemployment Tax, but most full-time workers are covered. Coverage is not determined by the employer, but by the state.

Fateweaver wrote:
130% below Federal minimum eh? I have friends in Mn that make $40k plus per year and were still able to get WIC. Last I heard poverty for a family of 4 is like $30k dollars (in that ballpark).

Yes it is. Forty thousand dollars isn't a lot of money for a family to live on. The average household income is roughly $60,000.

Fateweaver wrote:
@Doogma. Keep thinking what you want. UI is earned because I had to be part of the tax-paying populace, work long enough to qualify and lose my job through no fault of my own. If you don't call earning that then I guess benefits like vacation time aren't earned either.

Vacation benefits are provided voluntarily. Unemployment insurance is not.

dogma wrote:All welfare programs are at least partially funded through the payroll tax associated with FICA.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with the notion that unemployment is the only program based on past performance. As I understand it, things like food stamps and medical aid are provided to people based on their past or expected income. True, they can also be awarded on the basis of monthly income, but unemployment is comparable in that it is ultimately determined by current status; an employed person isn't going to receive unemployment.

You still need to have worked for both enough time (calender wise) and enough hours in each pay period to qualify. For example, I worked at Target and they lay their seasonal employees off right before they'd qualify for Unemployment.

I mean, I'm unemployed now and i can't claim UI. I probably come pretty close to food assitance though, as my savings dwindle (savings are a big part of food stamps, at least in ohio, just as much as current income). The two programs still differ in who qualifies: one is anybody currently broke and poor, the other is only those who lost jobs.

It's worth noting that Unemployment benefits are taxable as income.

Fateweaver wrote:
A single mom with infant kid gets MA meaning free care for her infant, she gets WIC meaning none of the foodstamp money (EBT dollars) has to go to baby food or anything like that since WIC covers it plus she would get around $400/month to cover things like gas and cigarettes and booze (things NOT covered by the EBT fund or WIC).

Where is the $400 coming from? WIC doesn't offer monetary support.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:The two programs still differ in who qualifies: one is anybody currently broke and poor, the other is only those who lost jobs.

Well sure, but all welfare programs differ in that the criteria for qualification is not identical across the board. The fact that you must have a child to be eligible for Women, Infants, and Children assistance does not change the fact that it welfare, and therefore comparable to food support or medical assistance. Similarly, I don't think that unemployment being contingent on having been employed disqualifies it from consideration as welfare as it is a benefit imposed, and administered by the state.

The majority of Americans out of work do not qualify for unemployment insurance. This includes part-time, temporary, and self-employed workers.
Generally, the worker must be unemployed through no fault of his/her own (generally through lay-offs). Unemployment benefits are based on reported covered quarterly earnings. The amount of earnings and the number of quarters worked are used to determine the length and value of the unemployment benefit. The average weekly payment is 36 percent of the individual's average weekly wage.

Please note the line about REPORTED earnings. Many illegals work "off the books" so they have no "reported Earnings.

The eligibility requirement is a family income below 185% of the U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines. If a person participates in other benefit programs, or has family members who participate in the Food Stamp Program, Medicaid, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, they automatically meet the eligibility requirements.

A woman who is pregnant and meets only one of these requirements qualifies. They also get Medicaid and qualify for food stamps as the qualifications are almost identical.
They only have to report their legal reportable income.. if they work off the books they do not have to report for these programs as it is not reported for other purposes, such as taxes.

dogma wrote:
Well sure, but all welfare programs differ in that the criteria for qualification is not identical across the board. The fact that you must have a child to be eligible for Women, Infants, and Children assistance does not change the fact that it welfare, and therefore comparable to food support or medical assistance. Similarly, I don't think that unemployment being contingent on having been employed disqualifies it from consideration as welfare as it is a benefit imposed, and administered by the state.

By that argument, a federal employees salary is welfare, as it's a benefit imposed and administered by the state.

I think most people separate the social welfare paid out of payroll taxes (social security, medicare, and UI) from Welfare paid out general funds, and I think for good reason. The benefits paid out are generally related to contributions paid in, in a form more similar to pensions than to poverty based welfare.

Wic, Food stamps and to some extent Medicaid all that is really needed is a low income and a child. A child in a house that is receiving either WIC or food stamps AUTOMATICALLY qualifies for medicaid.

To Qualify for unemployment, you need to be laid off or fired for some reason that is not your own doing. Hitting your boss, violating company policy, not showing for work, or just plain quitting for any reason means you do not get Unemployment benefits.

Polonius wrote:
By that argument, a federal employees salary is welfare, as it's a benefit imposed and administered by the state.

I've seen that argument made before. I don't think its reasonable because imposition is voluntarily assumed by an employee. Employers do not voluntarily assume imposition of payroll taxes.

Polonius wrote:
I think most people separate the social welfare paid out of payroll taxes (social security, medicare, and UI) from Welfare paid out general funds, and I think for good reason. The benefits paid out are generally related to contributions paid in, in a form more similar to pensions than to poverty based welfare.

Medicaid, SSI, and TANF are are all paid out of payroll taxes and are all open to anyone meeting certain criteria for economic hardship.

That's why I said generally. Clearly government benefits, outside of salary and vested pensions are a form of social welfare, but in both the public view and in terms of qualifications there are profound differences.

You seem really fixated on this, and I'm not sure why. Do you really not see a difference between vested benefits and completely open benefits?

So how does Arizona think this kind of legislation is going to help their state? Seems like Arizona is going to get sued throughout, boycotts will continue to pile up, and the cost to get illegals in the bloated legal system and transporting them back to their country of origin all seems counter-productive as well. Not to mention the potential and likely civil unrest that you're basically asking for. Or the hit you take from a reputation standpoint and that Arizona needs tourism. My vague math just doesn't seem to add up well for AZ then again thats the same state in which the governor that voted against MLK day also saw a UFO. Then there's all the other recent malarkey they've gotten themselves into with regulating accents, banning ethnic studies, etc.

Just seems like something thats going to help Jan Brewer get reelected than actually getting something done considering the law seems unconstitutional. Kinda like how infamous Arizonan John McCain flip-flopped his position on MLK day - at first he was opposed to its celebration but then realized it would've been political suicide to continue that course so he later supported it IIRC. Whatever gets those poll numbers up seems to be their goal which is understandable as well as despicable.

One, it focusses the press and the Fed on a problem that has been largely ignored.
Two, It reflects what the majority of the legal voters in the state think/believe/want.

They probably understand the hurdles in place and are willing to face them head on and not cower and shy away from them.

The Mexican Government is protesting policy in this country. The Mexican President is buying time on American radio and TV to talk to "his people".
Obama was actually apologising to the president of Mexico on the White House Lawn.

Face it, Mexico is acting like they are being attacked with these laws. And our fearful leader is allowing them to attempt to dictate policy in This country. To them the problem isn't people illegally crossing the border. For all appearences they seem to feel the problem is the border itself.

The problem is that this law would be an illegal act, just like crossing the border.

Polonius wrote:
You seem really fixated on this, and I'm not sure why. Do you really not see a difference between vested benefits and completely open benefits?

On a purely technical level, of course I do. But with regard to the moral impetus that seemed to be at the heart of Fateweaver's position, no, I don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:
Face it, Mexico is acting like they are being attacked with these laws

Why is that important?

helgrenze wrote:
And our fearful leader is allowing them to attempt to dictate policy in This country.

As far as I know it isn't illegal for foreign governments to broadcast political messages in the United States. Moreover, by taking offense to Mexican actions with respect to Arizona's legislative decisions you are allowing yourself to be influenced by a foreign government.

dogma wrote:

Polonius wrote:
You seem really fixated on this, and I'm not sure why. Do you really not see a difference between vested benefits and completely open benefits?

On a purely technical level, of course I do. But with regard to the moral impetus that seemed to be at the heart of Fateweaver's position, no, I don't.

Well, disagreeing with most of his points is certainly a step towards wisdom. I still think there is a tangible moral difference. There are some arguments to be made that payroll taxes lower wages, which means that those programs are actually funded by employee contributions. A lot of our tax and support structures are still built on Victorian era morality (The capital gains tax is one of the most notable examples), and I think this is one of them. UI is a protection for workers who through no fault, lost their jobs. WIC and Food stamps are simply general relief for the impoverished. Likewise, SSI help those either retired or disabled.

Of course, what FW misses is that by paying other taxes, he was supporting the welfare system that he may have qualified for. Keep in mind that most of those programs have both income and wealth ceilings. But if you paid taxes, and then ended up broke, why not take the stuff offered? Social welfare is there just like police or fire: to help people when they need it.

Gwar! wrote:So instead of having three people leech welfare, they have 1 child in an orphanage?

I wonder which costs less money actually...

So your assumption is that a couple who make the dangerous crossing from Mexico to the US do it not to work hard and build a better life for themselves and their new family, but to sit around on welfare?

You know how people have this idea of Chinese and Indian people being very hard working... well I've been to those countries and they are not somehow naturally harder workers than us. It's just that the Chinese and Indian people most of us see are the ones who left home to chase better economic opportunities in other countries - so people assume Chinese and Indian people are hard workers, when it's immigrants in general that are hard workers.

Now, obviously that doesn't mean illegal immigration is a good thing (every nation needs controls on who it allows into the country as the supply of labour is much greater than the supply of first world jobs) but your assumption that someone would crosses the border and later becomes a citizen would then shift onto welfare and not try to build a better life through hard work is very ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Actually the treatment of english soldiers was only due to the fact that they had colonials as prisoners as well. It wasn't civilized, it was a primitive version of "equally assured destruction".

What the hell is going on in school over there? Seriously?

sebster wrote:
So your assumption is that a couple who make the dangerous crossing from Mexico to the US do it not to work hard and build a better life for themselves and their new family, but to sit around on welfare?

You seem to have an idealized view that every Mexican illegal is one of heaven's angels. I know and work with a lot of Mexicans and aside from the ones that do come over and leech from our government, there are also the gangbangers and drug runners that hang out over here. A lot of them don't get U.S. citizenship so that they can jump back across the border and evade extradition when the law gets after them for murder, rape, drugs, you name it.
The thing is, most of the Mexicans that are here legaly are pissed about it because it gives them a bad name, but they are scared to do anything because they have family back in Mexico that could end up dead if they did.

dogma wrote:

helgrenze wrote:
Face it, Mexico is acting like they are being attacked with these laws

Why is that important?

helgrenze wrote:
And our fearful leader is allowing them to attempt to dictate policy in This country.

As far as I know it isn't illegal for foreign governments to broadcast political messages in the United States. Moreover, by taking offense to Mexican actions with respect to Arizona's legislative decisions you are allowing yourself to be influenced by a foreign government.

Mexican President Calderon sees those in this country illegally simply as "migrants", as if the southwestern states are part of Mexico.

In a speech to the U.S. Congress, Near the end of his speech, Calderon switched into Spanish for a message in support of comprehensive immigration reform. "I want to tell immigrants who are working here in this great country that we admire them, that we miss them, that we are fighting for your rights, and that we're working hard for Mexico and for your families," he said.

Would an American President be allowed to make such a statement or comments critical of Mexico policy while in that country.
The answer is NO. Mexican law prohibits foreign nationals from doing so on Mexican soil.

My opinion being influenced by comments of this kind is one thing, His assumption that he has any influence over laws in this country is another. Obama may not like the laws Arizona is passing, but He is President of this Nation... not some political appointee placed in Washington by Mexico. He needs to start acting like the Leader he sold himself to be and stop acting like a whipped dog everytime some other country gets annoyed.

I for one have no problem with the new Arizona laws. They may not be able to get them to stick, but if it gets the Fed. Gov. to actually do something worthwhile on the matter then its a plus.

Everyone has their own opinions and thats a given. Thing is unless you actually live around and SEE the problems firsthand then you do not really see whats going on. People can spout off all the laws they want, but these days laws are made to be broken or abused.

Lets take Unemployment Insurance for example. Its been stated on this board the stipulations that are in place to receive it. Come to Mississippi then - those stipulations do not exist, at least where I work. It doesn't matter if you get laid off, quit, got fired, threatened to beat the crap out of the boss ect, ex employees at my work place have received their benefits. We have fought this several times, but it didn't matter - benefits received.

WIC/free Govt food - go work there and see how things really work. Does it do good - yes, is it abused - absolutely. People that are elligible go in and get items just because they can - not because they need it. If they really NEEDED it then it wouldn't be allowed to ROT in the back of their truck. The "I didn't really need it, but it WAS free" comment kind of sealed the deal.

I had the pleasure of meeting several Hispanic workers at a previous employement. They had work visa's though so they were legally here until their paperwork expired. These workers were from Honduras however. If you want to see tempers flair - mess up and call a Honduran a Mexican and see what happens.

If everyone played by the rules everything would be hunky-dory and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The system is made to be broken though.

helgrenze wrote:And our fearful leader is allowing them to attempt to dictate policy in This country.

Much like Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy, no?

Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Frazzled wrote:Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Didn't say it was. However, with SB1070 Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy. Which is the evil that helgrenze was accusing Mexico's leader of doing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But while we're on the subject, the law Fate is referencing in the OP is in clear violation of the Constitution, and SB1070 is too, as immigration law is exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Didn't say it was. However, with SB1070 Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy. Which is the evil that helgrenze was accusing Mexico's leader of doing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But while we're on the subject, the law Fate is referencing in the OP is in clear violation of the Constitution, and SB1070 is too, as immigration law is exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

You're not getting the difference.

1. A state trying to act by example to get the federal government to do its job. It an internal matter.
2. Allowing a foreign head of state to criticize a portion of the union and then have a sitting President agree with him against a state (aka his own citizens). Who the hell does he work for? Its nuts and screamining hypocrisy (look atb Mexico's laws) Arizona should have immediately sent a bill to mexico for estimated helatchare costs for illegal immigrants for the last 20 years.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Didn't say it was. However, with SB1070 Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy. Which is the evil that helgrenze was accusing Mexico's leader of doing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But while we're on the subject, the law Fate is referencing in the OP is in clear violation of the Constitution, and SB1070 is too, as immigration law is exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

You're not getting the difference.

1. A state trying to act by example to get the federal government to do its job. It an internal matter.

You seriously don't see that Arizona is attempting to dictate where federal funds are spent with SB1070?

2. Allowing a foreign head of state to criticize a portion of the union and then have a sitting President agree with him against a state (aka his own citizens). Who the hell does he work for?

All of We The People, not just those living in Arizona.

Its nuts and screamining hypocrisy (look atb Mexico's laws) Arizona should have immediately sent a bill to mexico for estimated helatchare costs for illegal immigrants for the last 20 years.

Ah, yes. The way to remain a world superpower is clearly to adjust your behaviour to that of the LCD.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Didn't say it was. However, with SB1070 Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy. Which is the evil that helgrenze was accusing Mexico's leader of doing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But while we're on the subject, the law Fate is referencing in the OP is in clear violation of the Constitution, and SB1070 is too, as immigration law is exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

You're not getting the difference.

1. A state trying to act by example to get the federal government to do its job. It an internal matter.
2. Allowing a foreign head of state to criticize a portion of the union and then have a sitting President agree with him against a state (aka his own citizens). Who the hell does he work for? Its nuts and screamining hypocrisy (look atb Mexico's laws) Arizona should have immediately sent a bill to mexico for estimated helatchare costs for illegal immigrants for the last 20 years.

It is called diplomacy to attempt to assuage the feelings of others across the world relative to how we do things here and how we protect our own interests. However, it becomes appeasement when we start giving up American interests and policies to other parts of the world in order to placate them. So long as the Federal government does not approve of illegal immigration to the extent that they put a giant seal of approval of people illegally moving into America, we will have states like Arizona try and combat the illegal immigration as best as they could, which is by passing laws to combat illegal immigration.

Mistress of minis wrote:Theres this thing called 'Identity theft' thats pretty easy these days- and thats one of the biggest routes from which they are getting access to welfare, social security and other programs- fraudulent IDs are also how many of them are attaining work- this is why SB 1070 is going to be useful as it gives law enforcement the ability to really determine the validity of documaent carried by people that are in questionable situations.

Buzzz. Sorry, not true. I was a case worker for over 2 years here in Oklahoma and maintained a caseload of over 600 families. Of these families, I would estimate that less than 10% included households with illegal immigrants. Here is what families are eligible for, in households that have illegal immigrants; 1) Medical (in the form of medicaid) to any citizen children. 2) Food Stamps (SNAP) for any citizens in the household on a pro-rata basis. 3) Day Care assistance for the citizen children (depends on the state). For medical assistance, applicants must provide proof of citizenship

The 2002 Farm Bill restores SNAP eligibility to most legal immigrants that:

Have lived in the country for 5 years; or
Are receiving disability-related assistance or benefits, regardless of entry date; or
Starting 10-1-03, are children regardless of entry date.

Certain non-citizens such as those admitted for humanitarian reasons and those admitted for permanent residence are also eligible for the program. Eligible household members can get SNAP benefits even if there are other members of the household that are not eligible.

Mistress of minis wrote:Its not as cut & dry as a yes/no answer as you'd think either. A good freind of mine works for Az DES, and since they currently cant ask for citizenship paperwork- their ability to exclude or include someone based on nationality is often limited. So alot of happy illegals make it out the door once they learn the tricks of the system.

Your friend is doing it wrong and the supervisor that told him/her this needs to be reported. Even the Arizona online screening process asks about citizenship and states, "Note: If you answer "No" to this question, you will be asked about the immigration status of each person. You do not need to be a citizen to qualify for benefits. The administrators for this website do not collect or report data if you answer "No"." Also, the Arizona Policy Book clearly states a 40 quarter work requirement for non-citizens. So this is actually more stringent than the 5 years required by federal law. https://extranet.azdes.gov/faapolicymanual/wwhelp/wwhimpl/js/html/wwhelp.htm
Ask them about Participant Error code U1
"U1 One or more of your household members failed to meet citizenship or noncitizen status. "

Also ask them why they are not following Arizona Policy FAA2.N which requires: "Participants who declare U.S. citizenship must provide documented verification of U.S. citizenship. "When the CA, NA, or ST participant does not provide verification of their citizenship, key DI in the PT field on SEPA for the participant. Key HB in the INELIG RSN field on SEPA.

When all potentially eligible citizen participants fail to verify their citizenship, deny the CA or NA application. Key HB in the DENIAL CLOSURE REASON field on AFED and FSED and send the appropriate notice." Emphasis mine. Note that NA stands for Nutrition Assistance.

Mistress of minis wrote:The moms never spoke english except to say, 'Hospital!! Baby!' And thats how they get on welfare, food stamps, and a several other free money deals.

I don't envy the medicaid system that's probably overloaded in Arizona. I don't know medicaid in Arizona but in Oklahoma, illegal moms are eligible for 1 Dr. visit before birth and the medical services related to the birth itself.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Didn't say it was. However, with SB1070 Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy. Which is the evil that helgrenze was accusing Mexico's leader of doing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But while we're on the subject, the law Fate is referencing in the OP is in clear violation of the Constitution, and SB1070 is too, as immigration law is exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

Umm, we are US citizens, and have a right to dictate via legislation to have the laws of our state enforced- since the Feds are not enforcing the laws to any great effect.

Mr Calderon is NOT a US citizen, and does nothing to ease our problems- because it will make his job more difficult in his own country when the laws here are enforced and they cant easily slip through th e cracks and benefit. Then Mr Calderon will have to deal with his own citizens that are discontent.

SB 1070 is not a violation of the constitution- try reading it for yourself. I think Mr Obama did, and thats why he stopped bad mouthing it.

Laws are supposed to be just(ergo Justice), so when a law is being exploited so often and for so long, no one can be surprised when the people that have to pay for it get fed up.

But hey- most of you arent citizens in Arizona- and hence you cannot vote on the issue, nor elect/re-elect people that are voting on these difficult issues. So these are really just distant things you see through the TV or computer screen- when it comes time to vote here I'm going to keep voting to keep the ILLEGAL immigrants liable for thier actions and crimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Theres this thing called 'Identity theft' thats pretty easy these days- and thats one of the biggest routes from which they are getting access to welfare, social security and other programs- fraudulent IDs are also how many of them are attaining work- this is why SB 1070 is going to be useful as it gives law enforcement the ability to really determine the validity of documaent carried by people that are in questionable situations.

Buzzz. Sorry, not true. I was a case worker for over 2 years here in Oklahoma and maintained a caseload of over 600 families. Of these families, I would estimate that less than 10% included households with illegal immigrants. Here is what families are eligible for, in households that have illegal immigrants; 1) Medical (in the form of medicaid) to any citizen children. 2) Food Stamps (SNAP) for any citizens in the household on a pro-rata basis. 3) Day Care assistance for the citizen children (depends on the state). For medical assistance, applicants must provide proof of citizenship

Are you, or have you been a case worker in Arizona?

Mistress of minis wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Didn't say it was. However, with SB1070 Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy. Which is the evil that helgrenze was accusing Mexico's leader of doing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But while we're on the subject, the law Fate is referencing in the OP is in clear violation of the Constitution, and SB1070 is too, as immigration law is exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

Umm, we are US citizens, and have a right to dictate via legislation to have the laws of our state enforced- since the Feds are not enforcing the laws to any great effect.

Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

And last I checked, there were a couple of challenges being mounted.

Have fun while it lasts.

Mistress of minis wrote:SB 1070 is not a violation of the constitution- try reading it for yourself.

I have read it. It is in violation of the constititution. RAW and RAI, it's also bad policy for reasons I gave in the other thread.

Mistress of minis wrote:But hey- most of you arent citizens in Arizona- and hence you cannot vote on the issue, nor elect/re-elect people that are voting on these difficult issues. So these are really just distant things you see through the TV or computer screen- when it comes time to vote here I'm going to keep voting to keep the ILLEGAL immigrants liable for thier actions and crimes.

Sure. But as written, SB1070 isn't the way to do it. Even if we grant you the idea that it's not unconstitutional, it's bad policy. It grants local authority no discretion on how many resources they allocate to fighting illegal immigration as opposed to, say, major crimes, for one instance of it being a bad law made just to appease the voters.

Mistress of minis wrote:

Are you, or have you been a case worker in Arizona?

No but I am quite capable of reading both federal statute as well as Arizona state policy; both of which I have provided for you. So, if your friend and company are failing to meet both federal and state statute, they are doing something wrong. Only citizens (or qualified legal immigrants) are supposed to benefit from food stamp (SNAP) assistance. As I mentioned before, it is possible that a household, that has illegal immigrants among its members, could be receiving SNAP assistance; however, it will be a prorated amount based upon the number of legal immigrants/citizens in the household. That is federal law as administered by USDA under statute.

Heck, until the 2002 Farm Bill, even legal immigrants were ineligible. In 2002, they partially restored eligibility based upon the number of years the legal immigrant had resided in the U.S. (5 years). This is the minimum for eligibility. Arizona statute/policy expanded this to 40 work quarters (10 years). Don't believe me? Here's the statute: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/pdfs/Non_Citizen_Guidance.pdf Specifically see Section IX of the law.

Again, I can't help it if your friend is in violation of federal law by providing benefits to illegals; however, that doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist. Personally, if I were as concerned as you appear to be about illegal immigrants receiving services and was aware of infraction, I'd be contacting the local office of the Attorney General or the welfare fraud hotline: 1-800-251-2436

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

agnosto wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

Are you, or have you been a case worker in Arizona?

No but I am quite capable of reading both federal statute as well as Arizona state policy; both of which I have provided for you. So, if your friend and company are failing to meet both federal and state statute, they are doing something wrong. Only citizens (or qualified legal immigrants) are supposed to benefit from food stamp (SNAP) assistance. As I mentioned before, it is possible that a household, that has illegal immigrants among its members, could be receiving SNAP assistance; however, it will be a prorated amount based upon the number of legal immigrants/citizens in the household. That is federal law as administered by USDA under statute.

Heck, until the 2002 Farm Bill, even legal immigrants were ineligible. In 2002, they partially restored eligibility based upon the number of years the legal immigrant had resided in the U.S. (5 years). This is the minimum for eligibility. Arizona statute/policy expanded this to 40 work quarters (10 years). Don't believe me? Here's the statute: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/pdfs/Non_Citizen_Guidance.pdf Specifically see Section IX of the law.

Again, I can't help it if your friend is in violation of federal law by providing benefits to illegals; however, that doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist. Personally, if I were as concerned as you appear to be about illegal immigrants receiving services and was aware of infraction, I'd be contacting the local office of the Attorney General or the welfare fraud hotline: 1-800-251-2436

Gee, thats really helpful. Did you miss the whole part about identity theft? Do you think Az DES can afford to investigate every potential case of suspected ID fraud? If valid documents are provided- they cant deny the benefits. You're stating what is supposed to happen. In some idyllic fantasy world maybe that happens- but here it doesnt because the system is overwhelmed- hence SB 1070 being considered necessary.

Keep in mind that the Federal Immigration laws arent even enforced here(ergo SB 1070) - expecting lesser laws to be enforced seems almost delusional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Ya, I often wonder about that too. People from other countries looking at all this from a purely academic standpoint get exceedingly tiresome when theyre rather ignorant to the realities that make this sort of change something thats undertaken despite the obvious difficulty of the task.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Are you just being a curmudgeon? This is, among other things, exactly what the Supreme Court does.

Did you mean to quote some other part of my post?

Mistress of minis wrote:a, I often wonder about that too. People from other countries looking at all this from a purely academic standpoint get exceedingly tiresome when theyre rather ignorant to the realities that make this sort of change something thats undertaken despite the obvious difficulty of the task.

Yes, objective bystanders pointing out that laws like those in the OP are expressly contradicted in the Constitution must get real old.

Are foreigners not allowed to study US law now?

Do you have to be at least a permanent resident?

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Stay classy Frazz.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Are you just being a curmudgeon? This is, among other things, exactly what the Supreme Court does.

Did you mean to quote some other part of my post?

Mistress of minis wrote:a, I often wonder about that too. People from other countries looking at all this from a purely academic standpoint get exceedingly tiresome when theyre rather ignorant to the realities that make this sort of change something thats undertaken despite the obvious difficulty of the task.

Yes, objective bystanders pointing out that laws like those in the OP are expressly contradicted in the Constitution must get real old.

You make the statement it will be poured out by the US Supreme Court.

I would not presume to say what a foreign court will say about an internal matter. Its the height of Hubris.
Unless you're a past or present SCOTUS Justice you can't make that claim.
Are you a SCOTUS Justice? Are you an attorney specialized in Federal procedure and capable of arguing before the SCOTUS?
If you are neither you are patently unqualified to make such a statement. As your flag denotes a foreign country the preseumption is you are not qualified.

Study is one thing- but when you seem to forget that laws change- they are not set in stone.

They change when theres a need for it to do- and its not an easy process.

You call it objective- I call it being ignorant of the realities that make us willing to fight for change. Many of these laws are antiquated- and are not up to the task of dealing with the world we live in now.

Kilkrazy wrote:Are foreigners not allowed to study US law now?

Do you have to be at least a permanent resident?

How many study US law?

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Fraz I think you meant to post something insightful and instead posted something you should PM yourself a warning for.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Are you just being a curmudgeon? This is, among other things, exactly what the Supreme Court does.

Did you mean to quote some other part of my post?

Mistress of minis wrote:a, I often wonder about that too. People from other countries looking at all this from a purely academic standpoint get exceedingly tiresome when theyre rather ignorant to the realities that make this sort of change something thats undertaken despite the obvious difficulty of the task.

Yes, objective bystanders pointing out that laws like those in the OP are expressly contradicted in the Constitution must get real old.

You make the statement it will be poured out by the US Supreme Court.

I would not presume to say what a foreign court will say about an internal matter. Its the height of Hubris.
Unless you're a past or present SCOTUS Justice you can't make that claim.
Are you a SCOTUS Justice? Are you an attorney specialized in Federal procedure and capable of arguing before the SCOTUS?
If you are neither you are patently unqualified to make such a statement. As your flag denotes a foreign country the preseumption is you are not qualified.

Those conditions make almost everyone in the USA unqualified too.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Are you just being a curmudgeon? This is, among other things, exactly what the Supreme Court does.

Did you mean to quote some other part of my post?

Mistress of minis wrote:a, I often wonder about that too. People from other countries looking at all this from a purely academic standpoint get exceedingly tiresome when theyre rather ignorant to the realities that make this sort of change something thats undertaken despite the obvious difficulty of the task.

Yes, objective bystanders pointing out that laws like those in the OP are expressly contradicted in the Constitution must get real old.

You make the statement it will be poured out by the US Supreme Court.

I would not presume to say what a foreign court will say about an internal matter. Its the height of Hubris.
Unless you're a past or present SCOTUS Justice you can't make that claim.
Are you a SCOTUS Justice? Are you an attorney specialized in Federal procedure and capable of arguing before the SCOTUS?
If you are neither you are patently unqualified to make such a statement. As your flag denotes a foreign country the preseumption is you are not qualified.

Those conditions make almost everyone in the USA unqualified too.

Yep. Teacher's Unions have nothing on the lawyer union.

SB11:02> =post_id=1665588&

Frazzled wrote:You make the statement it will be poured out by the US Supreme Court.

I would not presume to say what a foreign court will say about an internal matter. Its the height of Hubris.
Unless you're a past or present SCOTUS Justice you can't make that claim.
Are you a SCOTUS Justice? Are you an attorney specialized in Federal procedure and capable of arguing before the SCOTUS?
If you are neither you are patently unqualified to make such a statement. As your flag denotes a foreign country the preseumption is you are not qualified.

Allow me to quote myself:

"Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them."

What about that do you find objectional?

Mistress of minis wrote:Study is one thing- but when you seem to forget that laws change- they are not set in stone.

They change when theres a need for it to do- and its not an easy process.

You call it objective- I call it being ignorant of the realities that make us willing to fight for change. Many of these laws are antiquated- and are not up to the task of dealing with the world we live in now.

I agree, when are you getting around to dropping that silly second amendment? Militias are pointless now.

Or are we not talking about the Constitution? It wouldn't make any sense, because that's been the context of the discussion, but I've learned not to assume.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Are foreigners not allowed to study US law now?

Do you have to be at least a permanent resident?

How many study US law?

*Raises hand*

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Are you just being a curmudgeon? This is, among other things, exactly what the Supreme Court does.

Did you mean to quote some other part of my post?

Mistress of minis wrote:a, I often wonder about that too. People from other countries looking at all this from a purely academic standpoint get exceedingly tiresome when theyre rather ignorant to the realities that make this sort of change something thats undertaken despite the obvious difficulty of the task.

Yes, objective bystanders pointing out that laws like those in the OP are expressly contradicted in the Constitution must get real old.

You make the statement it will be poured out by the US Supreme Court.

I would not presume to say what a foreign court will say about an internal matter. Its the height of Hubris.
Unless you're a past or present SCOTUS Justice you can't make that claim.
Are you a SCOTUS Justice? Are you an attorney specialized in Federal procedure and capable of arguing before the SCOTUS?
If you are neither you are patently unqualified to make such a statement. As your flag denotes a foreign country the preseumption is you are not qualified.

Those conditions make almost everyone in the USA unqualified too.

Yep. Teacher's Unions have nothing on the lawyer union.

You know that logic works for quite a few other things which you yourself comment on quite often.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

"Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them."

What about that do you find objectional?

Mea culpa. I read that as you making an interpretation of what the SCOTUS would do, not what would happen if it did. I apologize.

One of my best friends from law school was swedish. Another girl in my class was Russian.

I'm an American lawyer, and I agree with him that if a law is unconstitutional, SCOTUS will overturn it.

If is a mighty word.

I'd be curious what aspect SCOTUS would overturn, but IIRC AZ is in the Ninth Circuit, so it'll probably be struck down on appeal, with that action overturned by the SCOTUS.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You make the statement it will be poured out by the US Supreme Court.

I would not presume to say what a foreign court will say about an internal matter. Its the height of Hubris.
Unless you're a past or present SCOTUS Justice you can't make that claim.
Are you a SCOTUS Justice? Are you an attorney specialized in Federal procedure and capable of arguing before the SCOTUS?
If you are neither you are patently unqualified to make such a statement. As your flag denotes a foreign country the preseumption is you are not qualified.

Allow me to quote myself:

"Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them."

What about that do you find objectional?

Mistress of minis wrote:Study is one thing- but when you seem to forget that laws change- they are not set in stone.

They change when theres a need for it to do- and its not an easy process.

You call it objective- I call it being ignorant of the realities that make us willing to fight for change. Many of these laws are antiquated- and are not up to the task of dealing with the world we live in now.

I agree, when are you getting around to dropping that silly second amendment? Militias are pointless now.

Or are we not talking about the Constitution? It wouldn't make any sense, because that's been the context of the discussion, but I've learned not to assume.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Are foreigners not allowed to study US law now?

Do you have to be at least a permanent resident?

How many study US law?

*Raises hand*

Second amendment only seems pointless to those that dont have it. And it proves that even the Constitution is changed- theyre called amendments which are added- and even dropped. Again- not an easy process, but it has and can happen.

Do you have any qualifications to that study? Or is it just wiki-fu?

Being former law enforcement, I have a better than average grasp of the laws in my state- having sworn an oath to uphold them and all that.

Mmm, fallacies! Delicious AND fresh.

This thread is funny! I certainly look forward to rolling out the "So says the foreigner" in EVERY possible argument from now on. Easy wins are the best wins.

Nothing like appeal to authority to really cut to the heart of an argument.

Polonius wrote:One of my best friends from law school was swedish. Another girl in my class was Russian.

I'm an American lawyer, and I agree with him that if a law is unconstitutional, SCOTUS will overturn it.

If is a mighty word.

I'd be curious what aspect SCOTUS would overturn, but IIRC AZ is in the Ninth Circuit, so it'll probably be struck down on appeal, with that action overturned by the SCOTUS.

Yea that was my bad.
Wait:

One of my best friends from law school was swedish. Another girl in my class was Russian.

This sounds like the beginning of a bad (by bad I mean excellent) film...

Being former law enforcement, I have a better than average grasp of the laws in my state- having sworn an oath to uphold them and all that.

Heck, until the 2002 Farm Bill, even legal immigrants were ineligible. In 2002, they partially restored eligibility based upon the number of years the legal immigrant had resided in the U.S. (5 years). This is the minimum for eligibility. Arizona statute/policy expanded this to 40 work quarters (10 years). Don't believe me? Here's the statute: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/pdfs/Non_Citizen_Guidance.pdf Specifically see Section IX of the law.

Again, I can't help it if your friend is in violation of federal law by providing benefits to illegals; however, that doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist. Personally, if I were as concerned as you appear to be about illegal immigrants receiving services and was aware of infraction, I'd be contacting the local office of the Attorney General or the welfare fraud hotline: 1-800-251-2436

Oh?

Da Boss wrote:Mmm, fallacies! Delicious AND fresh.

This thread is funny! I certainly look forward to rolling out the "So says the foreigner" in EVERY possible argument from now on. Easy wins are the best wins.

Exactly. Now you have additional ammo. Who says I don't bring gifts for everyone?

Thanks Frazz!

Another point of view is that a foreigner can take an objective view about US law in a way that is difficult for a person who lives under it.

Police officers in many countries swear an oath and some of them still make mistakes or even commit crimes.

Frazzled wrote:
Wait:

One of my best friends from law school was swedish. Another girl in my class was Russian.

This sounds like the beginning of a bad (by bad I mean excellent) film...

It would have been. She was one of those Russian girls that took about 2 years to really figure out how to dress appropriately. I enjoyed watching the learning process....

He's married though, to an american girl. And I think he's either working on or is a Citizen. He's lived here for 13 years or something.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Gee, thats really helpful. Did you miss the whole part about identity theft? Do you think Az DES can afford to investigate every potential case of suspected ID fraud? If valid documents are provided- they cant deny the benefits. You're stating what is supposed to happen. In some idyllic fantasy world maybe that happens- but here it doesnt because the system is overwhelmed- hence SB 1070 being considered necessary.

I don't know about Arizona but the system here cross-checks data (names and socials) versus the feds and generates reports for the exceptions. Policy in this state is that such exceptions are to be investigated in a timely manner (30 days) by the workers. I don't recall if this was a state or federal directive; however, much of what we did was federally mandated. I managed to do all this and maintain a 625 family case load; believe me, I know how overloaded the system is.

.. so.. you're importing lawyers now ?!

..my god, we're doomed. Civilisation is over.

Mistress of minis wrote:Second amendment only seems pointless to those that dont have it.

Oh, I don't think that the second amendment is pointless as it stands. I think that militias are pointless. They're incredibly obsolete. And given that they're a fundamental part of what the second amendment was predicated on...

Mistress of minis wrote:And it proves that even the Constitution is changed- theyre called amendments which are added- and even dropped. Again- not an easy process, but it has and can happen.

It's not going to be changed by the Arizona state legislature, though, so I'm still confused as to what the hell you're talking about here when you say that:

Mistress of minis wrote:But hey- most of you arent citizens in Arizona- and hence you cannot vote on the issue, nor elect/re-elect people that are voting on these difficult issues. So these are really just distant things you see through the TV or computer screen- when it comes time to vote here I'm going to keep voting to keep the ILLEGAL immigrants liable for thier actions and crimes.

Mistress of minis wrote:Do you have any qualifications to that study? Or is it just wiki-fu?

I doubt I have any qualifications that would satisfy your curiosity on the matter. I'm not willing to post my university transcripts on a public forum.

Mistress of minis wrote:Being former law enforcement, I have a better than average grasp of the laws in my state- having sworn an oath to uphold them and all that.

It's been my experience that police know about the laws that they need to know about to do their job, much like any other government employee, but hey, maybe it's just the other 95% making the 5% look bad again.

reds8n wrote:.. so.. you're importing lawyers now ?!

..my god, we're doomed. Civilisation is over.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

..see ?.. And we bring the topic back to Arizona !

..I kid, I kid !

agnosto wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:
Gee, thats really helpful. Did you miss the whole part about identity theft? Do you think Az DES can afford to investigate every potential case of suspected ID fraud? If valid documents are provided- they cant deny the benefits. You're stating what is supposed to happen. In some idyllic fantasy world maybe that happens- but here it doesnt because the system is overwhelmed- hence SB 1070 being considered necessary.

I don't know about Arizona but the system here cross-checks data (names and socials) versus the feds and generates reports for the exceptions. Policy in this state is that such exceptions are to be investigated in a timely manner (30 days) by the workers. I don't recall if this was a state or federal directive; however, much of what we did was federally mandated. I managed to do all this and maintain a 625 family case load; believe me, I know how overloaded the system is.

Cross checks names and socials.....which accomplishes zero in a good ID theft. Im not questioning your knowledge of the Oklahoma or Federal guidelines- but you also do not know the particulars of the situation here. Making blanket statements about what should be done- when theres not budget to do it with doesnt help at all. Arizona, like many other states is facing an enormous budget crunch- state workers (like the DES employees) are taking pay cuts, getting laid off, or being made to work days without actual pay. In short- as the need for thier services increases- theres fewer of them, working fewer paid hours to help more people. It doesnt take a genius to see how things that slipped through the cracks before- are worse now.

reds8n wrote:.. so.. you're importing lawyers now ?!

..my god, we're doomed. Civilisation is over.

No, it's good, because we can send our lawyers over there to get rind of them.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

It's been my experience that police know about the laws that they need to know about to do their job, much like any other government employee, but hey, maybe it's just the other 95% making the 5% look bad again.

Sort of like 95% of people online act like experts on topics they really only have a minimal passing knowledge of- and make the 5% of actual experts look bad?

Mistress of minis wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

It's been my experience that police know about the laws that they need to know about to do their job, much like any other government employee, but hey, maybe it's just the other 95% making the 5% look bad again.

Sort of like 95% of people online act like experts on topics they really only have a minimal passing knowledge of- and make the 5% of actual experts look bad?

Kind of like when an arizonan ex cop acts like an expert of mideastern socioeconomics?

Mistress of minis wrote:
Cross checks names and socials.....which accomplishes zero in a good ID theft. Im not questioning your knowledge of the Oklahoma or Federal guidelines- but you also do not know the particulars of the situation here. Making blanket statements about what should be done- when theres not budget to do it with doesnt help at all. Arizona, like many other states is facing an enormous budget crunch- state workers (like the DES employees) are taking pay cuts, getting laid off, or being made to work days without actual pay. In short- as the need for thier services increases- theres fewer of them, working fewer paid hours to help more people. It doesnt take a genius to see how things that slipped through the cracks before- are worse now.

Hello, state worker here; I know all about budget shortfalls. Oklahoma is $1 billion in the hole right now with a state constitution that says we have to have a balanced budget. irk. And we're a much poorer state than Arizona. My contacts at OKDHS tell me about office closures, record high case loads, furloughs, and even telecommuting. People leaving the agency are not being replaced, etc, etc, etc. On top of all this is federal audits, which occur with regularity, with the sole purpose of finding what they are doing wrong. Believe me, the feds don't care about state budgets or case load; they only care if you're following the rules or not. If a state has a high enough defect rate, guess what happens? Loss of funds. And if it's high enough, OIG comes out for a lengthy visit with resulting head-rolling and federal prison terms.

I would think as a former law enforcement officer, you would be aware that there is no excuse for breaking the law.

Mistress of minis wrote:Cross checks names and socials.....which accomplishes zero in a good ID theft. Im not questioning your knowledge of the Oklahoma or Federal guidelines- but you also do not know the particulars of the situation here. Making blanket statements about what should be done- when theres not budget to do it with doesnt help at all. Arizona, like many other states is facing an enormous budget crunch- state workers (like the DES employees) are taking pay cuts, getting laid off, or being made to work days without actual pay. In short- as the need for thier services increases- theres fewer of them, working fewer paid hours to help more people. It doesnt take a genius to see how things that slipped through the cracks before- are worse now.

And yet you advocate voting for SB1070, which, among other things, "prohibits cities, towns, and counties from having any policy in place limiting the investigation of violations of federal enforcement laws to less than the full extent permitted among federal law."

You don't see the disconnect here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mistress of minis wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:It's been my experience that police know about the laws that they need to know about to do their job, much like any other government employee, but hey, maybe it's just the other 95% making the 5% look bad again.

Sort of like 95% of people online act like experts on topics they really only have a minimal passing knowledge of- and make the 5% of actual experts look bad?

No, those aren't the same at all.

Oh, I see, you're using the vaguely-alike statistics to say that the two scenarios are also alike when they're not actually alike at all! You funny guy! I kill you last!

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Cross checks names and socials.....which accomplishes zero in a good ID theft. Im not questioning your knowledge of the Oklahoma or Federal guidelines- but you also do not know the particulars of the situation here. Making blanket statements about what should be done- when theres not budget to do it with doesnt help at all. Arizona, like many other states is facing an enormous budget crunch- state workers (like the DES employees) are taking pay cuts, getting laid off, or being made to work days without actual pay. In short- as the need for thier services increases- theres fewer of them, working fewer paid hours to help more people. It doesnt take a genius to see how things that slipped through the cracks before- are worse now.

And yet you advocate voting for SB1070, which, among other things, "prohibits cities, towns, and counties from having any policy in place limiting the investigation of violations of federal enforcement laws to less than the full extent permitted among federal law."

You don't see the disconnect here?

SB 1070 does NOTHING to limit the enforcement of federal laws.....are you sure you actually read it? Now go read the current federal laws on the same issue(if youre an expert you can find them)- theyre rather similar with the differences being mostly that state, county and municipal authorities can enforce the laws the federal authorities are not.

Lets look at some easy numbers- just rounded off figures that have been used by multiple credible media sources.

We(the Az citizens and tax payers) are footing the bill for the illegals to the tune of nearly 1 billion dollars a year just in quantifiable civil costs- 800million or so in education, thats where illegals kids are going to our K-12 public schools for free(and getting catered to with spanish only classes and numerous 'bi lingual' classes). Then toss in 400 million in healthcare costs that are never repaid(alot of this is popping out the kids to go to our schools and making the 'anchor babies'). Round that off with at least 80 million in incarceration costs for illegals. Now, yes, the do pay some taxes that cant be avoided- namely sales taxes- and the figures on what they 'pay into' the system is around 250 million.

Which means the Az taxpayers are taking it in the pants to the tune of at least 1 billion dollars a year. Thats not counting the property damage(they rarely have insurance- so what do you think happens when they cause an accident?), court costs and a myriad of other random civil services.

So, tell me why we should tolerate people illegally entering our country and essentially robbing(not to mention the ones that literally rob) us of the money that could put our budget back into the positive side?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

I would think as a former law enforcement officer, you would be aware that there is no excuse for breaking the law.

Do you realize the utter irony of this when we are discussing illegal immigration as the core of this topic? The people causing the problem are here illegally in the first place....etc etc

Mistress of minis wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Cross checks names and socials.....which accomplishes zero in a good ID theft. Im not questioning your knowledge of the Oklahoma or Federal guidelines- but you also do not know the particulars of the situation here. Making blanket statements about what should be done- when theres not budget to do it with doesnt help at all. Arizona, like many other states is facing an enormous budget crunch- state workers (like the DES employees) are taking pay cuts, getting laid off, or being made to work days without actual pay. In short- as the need for thier services increases- theres fewer of them, working fewer paid hours to help more people. It doesnt take a genius to see how things that slipped through the cracks before- are worse now.

And yet you advocate voting for SB1070, which, among other things, "prohibits cities, towns, and counties from having any policy in place limiting the investigation of violations of federal enforcement laws to less than the full extent permitted among federal law."

You don't see the disconnect here?

SB 1070 does NOTHING to limit the enforcement of federal laws.....are you sure you actually read it? Now go read the current federal laws on the same issue(if youre an expert you can find them)- theyre rather similar with the differences being mostly that state, county and municipal authorities can enforce the laws the federal authorities are not.

Full disclosure, I did make a typo when I transcribed that part of the law. I should have written "permitted by federal law," not "among federal law."

However, that doesn't get you off the hook. Reread what I posted. Reread what you posted.

agnosto wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Theres this thing called 'Identity theft' thats pretty easy these days- and thats one of the biggest routes from which they are getting access to welfare, social security and other programs- fraudulent IDs are also how many of them are attaining work- this is why SB 1070 is going to be useful as it gives law enforcement the ability to really determine the validity of documaent carried by people that are in questionable situations.

Buzzz. Sorry, not true. I was a case worker for over 2 years here in Oklahoma and maintained a caseload of over 600 families. Of these families, I would estimate that less than 10% included households with illegal immigrants. Here is what families are eligible for, in households that have illegal immigrants; 1) Medical (in the form of medicaid) to any citizen children. 2) Food Stamps (SNAP) for any citizens in the household on a pro-rata basis. 3) Day Care assistance for the citizen children (depends on the state). For medical assistance, applicants must provide proof of citizenship

Buzz, sorry not true. I just started receiving food stamps to help my uncle as I search for a job. The only thing required was State ID (easily obtained with a stolen Identity), and a SSN card, (also not that hard). What did they need to provide me Medical care? Oh, a Birth Certificate (which is required to obtain the first two) OR an affidavit signed by another "legal citizen" stating that I was indeed an American Citizen. Yes, there was some crap on the back about penalties under law for perjerious statements, but I doubt anybody who is willing to lie on the form in the first place cares about the penalties associated with doing so. This is hardly "proof" of citizenship. Granted there was a thumbprint check, but when I asked about it, it was a check to be sure that I wasn't already recieving benefits under a different name..

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:]

And yet you advocate voting for SB1070, which, among other things, "prohibits cities, towns, and counties from having any policy in place limiting the investigation of violations of federal enforcement laws to less than the full extent permitted among federal law."

You don't see the disconnect here?

SB 1070 does NOTHING to limit the enforcement of federal laws.....are you sure you actually read it? Now go read the current federal laws on the same issue(if youre an expert you can find them)- theyre rather similar with the differences being mostly that state, county and municipal authorities can enforce the laws the federal authorities are not.

Okay, because you clearly don't understand what I wrote:

I'm not talking about the investigations being limited. I'm saying that you have a system which is, by your own admission, already in budget crunch. And now the state legislature has made it illegal for towns, cities, and counties to make it policy not to investigate violations of federal law to less than the full extent of the budget crunch.

tl;dr: SB1070 just radically increased the workload and the system is already at breaking point.

And, again, you don't see the disconnect. Hmmm.

Mistress of minis wrote:

SB 1070 does NOTHING to limit the enforcement of federal laws.....are you sure you actually read it? Now go read the current federal laws on the same issue(if youre an expert you can find them)- theyre rather similar with the differences being mostly that state, county and municipal authorities can enforce the laws the federal authorities are not.

Lets look at some easy numbers- just rounded off figures that have been used by multiple credible media sources.

We(the Az citizens and tax payers) are footing the bill for the illegals to the tune of nearly 1 billion dollars a year just in quantifiable civil costs- 800million or so in education, thats where illegals kids are going to our K-12 public schools for free(and getting catered to with spanish only classes and numerous 'bi lingual' classes). Then toss in 400 million in healthcare costs that are never repaid(alot of this is popping out the kids to go to our schools and making the 'anchor babies'). Round that off with at least 80 million in incarceration costs for illegals. Now, yes, the do pay some taxes that cant be avoided- namely sales taxes- and the figures on what they 'pay into' the system is around 250 million.

Which means the Az taxpayers are taking it in the pants to the tune of at least 1 billion dollars a year. Thats not counting the property damage(they rarely have insurance- so what do you think happens when they cause an accident?), court costs and a myriad of other random civil services.

So, tell me why we should tolerate people illegally entering our country and essentially robbing(not to mention the ones that literally rob) us of the money that could put our budget back into the positive side?

You're misrepresenting numbers again. Arizona received $485,628,440 in federal Title 1, Part A and ARRA funds from the federal government. Since it's easily arguable that the children of illegal immigrants (it's a separate issue as to how many of the children are citizens) are attending Title 1, part A schools, it's not only an Arizona issue. By that I mean, shouldn't the rest of us tax payers have a say in how Arizona addresses the issue? ...I mean, it's our money too.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy09/index.html

FY 2009, Arizona received 9,309,076,348 in Federal money. You wanna talk welfare...
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html#update

Every tax payer is supporting 2 deadbeats. I differentiate between illegal or citizen deadbeat and it's been my personal experience that the illegals are less likely to milk the system than the, "citizens".

Mistress of minis wrote:Do you realize the utter irony of this when we are discussing illegal immigration as the core of this topic? The people causing the problem are here illegally in the first place....etc etc

Yep, life is not without its little ironies. But then I'm all for illegal immigrants not benefiting; however, it irks me when people misrepresent things that I know a good deal about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lordhat wrote:Buzz, sorry not true. I just started receiving food stamps to help my uncle as I search for a job. The only thing required was State ID (easily obtained with a stolen Identity), and a SSN card, (also not that hard). What did they need to provide me Medical care? Oh, a Birth Certificate (which is required to obtain the first two) OR an affidavit signed by another "legal citizen" stating that I was indeed an American Citizen. Yes, there was some crap on the back about penalties under law for perjerious statements, but I doubt anybody who is willing to lie on the form in the first place cares about the penalties associated with doing so. This is hardly "proof" of citizenship. Granted there was a thumbprint check, but when I asked about it, it was a check to be sure that I wasn't already recieving benefits under a different name..

Yeah, you were cross-checked. If a red flag were raised, you would have been asked to provide further verification; the system is automated to a certain extent.

And I already stated that medicaid and day care assistance depend a great deal on state rules. I don't know about your state but in mine all suspected fraud is referred to the state office of the inspector general for investigaton. I was responsible for 2 people going to court and one felon being arrested in the office during my time at DHS.

The thumbprint is also crosschecked with state and federal databases to make sure you're not a wanted felon (as it's against federal law to provide services to wanted felons).

Ok- you're claiming to have read SB 1070.

You did make note of who pays the court costs and jailing fees for those who violate SB 1070?

Getting them out, lowers the burden and frees up the funds so the programs in place can run properly.

In the short term it may increase the workload on law enforcement (Agnosto and my replies to him are based on Social work- not law enforcement).

But it doesnt seem like thats likely as we are already seeing a migration of mexican nationals out of Arizona and the law isnt even in effect until the end of July..

So sure, there may be an uphill push before the direct improvements are seen, but I still think people are vastly oblivious about how this law is going to be enforced. Law Enforcement will carry on doing their job just like they have been. The only change- is that when they do pull someone over- or show up to a fight or any of the things cops regularly do- they'll check citizenship papers/ID, and can arrest/detain those involved that are here illegally. They arent going to gear up in riot armor and go do sweeps or anything like that.

helgrenze wrote:
Mexican President Calderon sees those in this country illegally simply as "migrants", as if the southwestern states are part of Mexico.

You keep making these statements about how inappropriate Mexico's position is without actually connecting them to a rationale regarding their importance. Its almost as if you think the point is self-evident, which is an awful mistake in the course of any argument. All you're accomplishing by continuing along this line is the deepening of my suspicion that you don't have a rational means by which to establish the significance of any comment made by Calderon, and are instead proceeding purely on emotion. A suspicion that, if proven factual, would make me think far less of any comment you might make in the future.

helgrenze wrote:
Would an American President be allowed to make such a statement or comments critical of Mexico policy while in that country.
The answer is NO. Mexican law prohibits foreign nationals from doing so on Mexican soil.

Yes, it does. However, American law does not. Why are you so concerned with what Mexican law states?

helgrenze wrote:
My opinion being influenced by comments of this kind is one thing, His assumption that he has any influence over laws in this country is another.

Yes, they're two different things, but you didn't raise the second point until now. Again, you seem to be proceeding on the basis that the facts you're presenting will carry self-evident weight. Again, this is almost always a rather convenient way to conceal an argumentative weakness; very much like asking a rhetorical question.

Moreover, I think its rather naive to presume that foreign leaders have absolutely no control over domestic legislative processes. Nominally they are not supposed to, hence the laws regarding campaign finance from foreign sources (now rather moot given the absence of a cap on corporate sponsorship in a world of wholly owned subsidiaries), but in practice diplomatic pressure can be a powerful force in those instances where leverage is established. Of course, Mexico has very little leverage on the US.

helgrenze wrote:
Obama may not like the laws Arizona is passing, but He is President of this Nation... not some political appointee placed in Washington by Mexico. He needs to start acting like the Leader he sold himself to be and stop acting like a whipped dog everytime some other country gets annoyed.

Are you claiming that rhetoric is important now? Because in the thread about the oil spill you spent a lot of time speaking to the contrary. It seems like you're only concerned about political language when it would produce a sense of satisfaction for you.

As I understand it, neither US federal law or policy have changed to accommodate Mexico or its interests. In the face of that, why is the rhetoric being used to put a face on the state at all important?

agnosto wrote:

You're misrepresenting numbers again. Arizona received $485,628,440 in federal Title 1, Part A and ARRA funds from the federal government. Since it's easily arguable that the children of illegal immigrants (it's a separate issue as to how many of the children are citizens) are attending Title 1, part A schools, it's not only an Arizona issue. By that I mean, shouldn't the rest of us tax payers have a say in how Arizona addresses the issue? ...I mean, it's our money too.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy09/index.html

FY 2009, Arizona received 9,309,076,348 in Federal money. You wanna talk welfare...
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html#update

Every tax payer is supporting 2 deadbeats. I differentiate between illegal or citizen deadbeat and it's been my personal experience that the illegals are less likely to milk the system than the, "citizens".

Mistress of minis wrote:Do you realize the utter irony of this when we are discussing illegal immigration as the core of this topic? The people causing the problem are here illegally in the first place....etc etc

Yep, life is not without its little ironies. But then I'm all for illegal immigrants not benefiting; however, it irks me when people misrepresent things that I know a good deal about.

Ok, please tell me how the federals funds we recieve, in anyway mean that the illegal immigrants do not put a burden on Arizona tax payers? EVERY state gets federal funding- sorta comes with that whole deal of paying federal taxes.

Where your numbers become totally irrelevant to the topic at hand- is the Feds do not provide us any extra money to compensate for the illegal immigrants. Last time I checked, those funds are delegated via census numbers- of which illegal immigrants arent counted. Does that need to be explained more? Seems pretty simple.

Im not questioning what you claim to know, as you do seem knowledgeable in your field. But unless you're going to come here and single handedly fix the immigration related issues- you're just another online sock puppet making noises on a subject you dont know all the variables of. Do you see me telling you how Social work laws operate? Nope- Im just relating the symptoms/effects of a problem that has local specifics you don't seem to be aware of.

Mistress of minis wrote:So sure, there may be an uphill push before the direct improvements are seen, but I still think people are vastly oblivious about how this law is going to be enforced. Law Enforcement will carry on doing their job just like they have been. The only change- is that when they do pull someone over- or show up to a fight or any of the things cops regularly do- they'll check citizenship papers/ID, and can arrest/detain those involved that are here illegally. They arent going to gear up in riot armor and go do sweeps or anything like that.

Who's holding them while they're awaiting shipment to the feds?

Who's transporting them while they're shipped to the feds?

Who's holding them when the feds don't deport them, as they've said they might not (indeed, they've said that they don't guarantee to deport anyone not brought to them by federal agencies) ?

That's right, Arizona.

It's not all about the guys on the front line.

Let's leave aside that without even being enforced it's inflamed racial tensions considerably. I wonder what it'll be like when it is.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:So sure, there may be an uphill push before the direct improvements are seen, but I still think people are vastly oblivious about how this law is going to be enforced. Law Enforcement will carry on doing their job just like they have been. The only change- is that when they do pull someone over- or show up to a fight or any of the things cops regularly do- they'll check citizenship papers/ID, and can arrest/detain those involved that are here illegally. They arent going to gear up in riot armor and go do sweeps or anything like that.

Who's holding them while they're awaiting shipment to the feds?

Who's transporting them while they're shipped to the feds?

Who's holding them when the feds don't deport them, as they've said they might not (indeed, they've said that they don't guarantee to deport anyone not brought to them by federal agencies) ?

That's right, Arizona.

It's not all about the guys on the front line.

Let's leave aside that without even being enforced it's inflamed racial tensions considerably. I wonder what it'll be like when it is.

Ok- so no- you didnt read it- or you'd have a general clue about how its going to be prosecuted.

For first time offenders- its the same as trespassing- a misdemeanor, class 1. Bumps to a class 4 felony if they re-offend withing 60 months, and a class 2 if narcotics or human smuggling is involved.

" Directs the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of at least $500 for the first violation or at least $1,000 for subsequent offenses. " <---jail costs and a few $ on top. I think that answers some of your question. Even if they get out on bail(which will likely be set higher than the fees theyd have to pay- even if they skip out and dont pay it- its that much more insurance that they wont come back.

9 out of 10 times these are people that would be getting arrested anyways during regular law enforcement activities- its not like theyre going to be doing illegal immigrant sweeps- the law is not intended nor designed for that.

Mistress of minis wrote:
" Directs the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of at least $500 for the first violation or at least $1,000 for subsequent offenses. " <---jail costs and a few $ on top. I think that answers some of your question. Even if they get out on bail(which will likely be set higher than the fees theyd have to pay- even if they skip out and dont pay it- its that much more insurance that they wont come back.

The state pays initial jail costs. When fees are assessed to an individual they are returned to the state as reimbursement. Given the relative economic security of the people likely to be involved in the arrests under HB1070, the State will most likely bear the brunt of the financial burden. When someone is shipped to the feds, the state will have no opportunity to recoup costs in the event of deportation.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Where your numbers become totally irrelevant to the topic at hand- is the Feds do not provide us any extra money to compensate for the illegal immigrants. Last time I checked, those funds are delegated via census numbers- of which illegal immigrants arent counted. Does that need to be explained more? Seems pretty simple.

Actually, the census doesn't ask about citizinship; it just asks if you are an American citizen...there are plenty of legal, permanent residents (my wife being one) here legally in the U.S. I think you're confusing the census with the American Community Survey (ACS) which does ask about legal residency (not everyone receives the ACS). Funding is based off of the census so by forcing out the illegals, Arizona is hurting itself as far as federal funding goes. I'm not saying good or bad, I'm just saying.

Mistress of minis wrote:Im not questioning what you claim to know, as you do seem knowledgeable in your field. But unless you're going to come here and single handedly fix the immigration related issues- you're just another online sock puppet making noises on a subject you dont know all the variables of. Do you see me telling you how Social work laws operate? Nope- Im just relating the symptoms/effects of a problem that has local specifics you don't seem to be aware of.

Hey, I'm not even saying which way I go on the issue, I'm just saying that you can argue your case without inflating or misrepresenting facts.

My personal opinion is that there should be some path for these people to come here legally and do the work that no citizen seems to want to do. I know I don't want to work in a field, in 110 degree weather, picking fruit all day. Every other country in the world has a guest worker program, I don't see why we, as a country, can't make a similar system. I don't even like Bush but he had a decent idea back in 2004: http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/guestworkerprogram.html

agnosto wrote:
Hey, I'm not even saying which way I go on the issue, I'm just saying that you can argue your case without inflating or misrepresenting facts.

So, yes or no- can people who successfully commit identity theft, obtain social aid benefits, be it welfare, SNAP(foodstamps for those not in the know) or whatever misc other program?

Mistress of minis wrote:

agnosto wrote:
Hey, I'm not even saying which way I go on the issue, I'm just saying that you can argue your case without inflating or misrepresenting facts.

So, yes or no- can people who successfully commit identity theft, obtain social aid benefits, be it welfare, SNAP(foodstamps for those not in the know) or whatever misc other program?

In theory so could tigers.

dogma wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:
" Directs the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of at least $500 for the first violation or at least $1,000 for subsequent offenses. " <---jail costs and a few $ on top. I think that answers some of your question. Even if they get out on bail(which will likely be set higher than the fees theyd have to pay- even if they skip out and dont pay it- its that much more insurance that they wont come back.

The state pays initial jail costs. When fees are assessed to an individual they are returned to the state as reimbursement. Given the relative economic security of the people likely to be involved in the arrests under HB1070, the State will most likely bear the brunt of the financial burden. When someone is shipped to the feds, the state will have no opportunity to recoup costs in the event of deportation.

Right- but my second point there, was if the offender knows that they owe the State of Az several thousand dollars in jail fees- they are alot less likely to attempt to return. Especially if its in the 60 month window where it gets bumped to a felony. Once its a felony asset seizure is part of the deal, which can defray some of the costs as well.

As I said in earlier posts- theres likely to be an upfront cost to this. But I doubt it costs more than the burden of what we're already dealing with. Its sort of like an investment- theres an up front cost and it might take a while to see the dividends pay out. But I dont think it will take as long as the 1070 critics believe.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

agnosto wrote:
Hey, I'm not even saying which way I go on the issue, I'm just saying that you can argue your case without inflating or misrepresenting facts.

So, yes or no- can people who successfully commit identity theft, obtain social aid benefits, be it welfare, SNAP(foodstamps for those not in the know) or whatever misc other program?

In theory so could tigers.

Hey if you can get a tiger to submit a pawprint, then that tiger should be entitled to all the steak it wants.

Mistress of minis wrote:

agnosto wrote:
Hey, I'm not even saying which way I go on the issue, I'm just saying that you can argue your case without inflating or misrepresenting facts.

So, yes or no- can people who successfully commit identity theft, obtain social aid benefits, be it welfare, SNAP(foodstamps for those not in the know) or whatever misc other program?

If they're caught, no. It's been my experience that they are usually caught; here's how (examples from my personal experience). I ran my exception report and received several for SSNs; usually, these exceptions are due to newborns being in the sysem and added to benefits before they receive their SSC from the SSA (let me know if any of these acronyms needs to be explained).

1. Checking the system I noted that baby Jorge had a job (SSNs are matched in the federal database on a quarterly basis as income is reported to the IRS for each SSN). I pulled up the case in the system and noted that baby jorge had a dad, a mom and a couple of siblings. Following procedure, I filled out a referral form and sent it to state office for federal submission.

2. Name and SSN mismatch. Pulled up the case and there was no, "John Smith"(made up name) in the household. Called the employer and spoke with HR person. Found out that the SSN was being used by Jose (another made up name). Filled out referral and sent it along. Sent household a request for citizenship verification for Jose (there's always a chance that a SSN is wrong in the system), the didn't send one, call or come in so I closed the case.

It didn't take all that long to complete either scenario and bear in mind I had 623 other families to take care of.

Mistress of minis wrote:

dogma wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:
" Directs the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of at least $500 for the first violation or at least $1,000 for subsequent offenses. " <---jail costs and a few $ on top. I think that answers some of your question. Even if they get out on bail(which will likely be set higher than the fees theyd have to pay- even if they skip out and dont pay it- its that much more insurance that they wont come back.

The state pays initial jail costs. When fees are assessed to an individual they are returned to the state as reimbursement. Given the relative economic security of the people likely to be involved in the arrests under HB1070, the State will most likely bear the brunt of the financial burden. When someone is shipped to the feds, the state will have no opportunity to recoup costs in the event of deportation.

Right- but my second point there, was if the offender knows that they owe the State of Az several thousand dollars in jail fees- they are alot less likely to attempt to return. Especially if its in the 60 month window where it gets bumped to a felony. Once its a felony asset seizure is part of the deal, which can defray some of the costs as well.

As I said in earlier posts- theres likely to be an upfront cost to this. But I doubt it costs more than the burden of what we're already dealing with. Its sort of like an investment- theres an up front cost and it might take a while to see the dividends pay out. But I dont think it will take as long as the 1070 critics believe.

Where do you deport people who can't present a sufficient ID?

New York City?

Get a rope...

agnosto wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

agnosto wrote:
Hey, I'm not even saying which way I go on the issue, I'm just saying that you can argue your case without inflating or misrepresenting facts.

So, yes or no- can people who successfully commit identity theft, obtain social aid benefits, be it welfare, SNAP(foodstamps for those not in the know) or whatever misc other program?

If they're caught, no. It's been my experience that they are usually caught; here's how (examples from my personal experience). I ran my exception report and received several for SSNs; usually, these exceptions are due to newborns being in the sysem and added to benefits before they receive their SSC from the SSA (let me know if any of these acronyms needs to be explained).

I did say successfully commit identity theft.....so if they are not caught its a 'yes'.

agnosto wrote: 1. Checking the system I noted that baby Jorge had a job (SSNs are matched in the federal database on a quarterly basis as income is reported to the IRS for each SSN). I pulled up the case in the system and noted that baby jorge had a dad, a mom and a couple of siblings. Following procedure, I filled out a referral form and sent it to state office for federal submission.

2. Name and SSN mismatch. Pulled up the case and there was no, "John Smith"(made up name) in the household. Called the employer and spoke with HR person. Found out that the SSN was being used by Jose (another made up name). Filled out referral and sent it along. Sent household a request for citizenship verification for Jose (there's always a chance that a SSN is wrong in the system), the didn't send one, call or come in so I closed the case.

It didn't take all that long to complete either scenario and bear in mind I had 623 other families to take care of.

You seem to have some belief that the system is flawless. I know there are checks in place to prevent fraud. That doesnt mean much in this case since they can gamble on it- if the info they give is false- if charges are actually filed- they can just go back across the border. Or go buy another set of stoeln ID papers and try again, or they pop out an anchor baby and get thier benefits via that method. So you had 2 flags in 623 cases that didnt raise flags- how many of them may have successfully committed ID fraud? Systems have limits and the people selling the ID's are getting very good at what they do when it comes to working within certain systems. But in the end- for those 2 you did find- it sounds like all you did was shuffle the paperwork to the next desk up the ladder and all that happened was they were denied benefits. That doesnt mean they didnt keep trying and succeed with different papers, or when someone less diligent than yourself handled the case.

You did your job in Ok- not Az, so again, you're playing 'what ifs'. Im sure you did your job well over there. But until you come do the job here, and can then tell me its not happening after a few months- I'd be happy to hear about it. Otherwise, comprehend that Ok is not a border state that has had a large number of people trying to take advantage of the system in every way possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

dogma wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:
" Directs the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of at least $500 for the first violation or at least $1,000 for subsequent offenses. " <---jail costs and a few $ on top. I think that answers some of your question. Even if they get out on bail(which will likely be set higher than the fees theyd have to pay- even if they skip out and dont pay it- its that much more insurance that they wont come back.

The state pays initial jail costs. When fees are assessed to an individual they are returned to the state as reimbursement. Given the relative economic security of the people likely to be involved in the arrests under HB1070, the State will most likely bear the brunt of the financial burden. When someone is shipped to the feds, the state will have no opportunity to recoup costs in the event of deportation.

Right- but my second point there, was if the offender knows that they owe the State of Az several thousand dollars in jail fees- they are alot less likely to attempt to return. Especially if its in the 60 month window where it gets bumped to a felony. Once its a felony asset seizure is part of the deal, which can defray some of the costs as well.

As I said in earlier posts- theres likely to be an upfront cost to this. But I doubt it costs more than the burden of what we're already dealing with. Its sort of like an investment- theres an up front cost and it might take a while to see the dividends pay out. But I dont think it will take as long as the 1070 critics believe.

Where do you deport people who can't present a sufficient ID?

Im hoping we send them to Australia since Warboss TZzoo seems to have such a commanding grasp of the situation and how to solve the problem

So how do you say OI! with a Salvadoran accent? That would be so cool.

Frazzled wrote:New York City?

Wouldn't that be Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

Mistress of minis wrote:

I did say successfully commit identity theft.....so if they are not caught its a 'yes'.

Well, gee; if you rob a bank and no one catches you, I guess you benefit from the money. That statement makes about as much sense.

Mistress of minis wrote:You seem to have some belief that the system is flawless. I know there are checks in place to prevent fraud. That doesnt mean much in this case since they can gamble on it- if the info they give is false- if charges are actually filed- they can just go back across the border. Or go buy another set of stoeln ID papers and try again, or they pop out an anchor baby and get thier benefits via that method. So you had 2 flags in 623 cases that didnt raise flags- how many of them may have successfully committed ID fraud? Systems have limits and the people selling the ID's are getting very good at what they do when it comes to working within certain systems. But in the end- for those 2 you did find- it sounds like all you did was shuffle the paperwork to the next desk up the ladder and all that happened was they were denied benefits. That doesnt mean they didnt keep trying and succeed with different papers, or when someone less diligent than yourself handled the case.

If anything, I'm a cynic. Oh god no, that's just two examples I threw out there; the exception reports were run on a weekly basis and the beginning of a fiscal quarter would sometimes see 50 or more exceptions per week of which a variable percentage were red flags for OIG or federal review. The system's not flawless, no system is. Even the laws Arizona is passing aren't flawless, they just make more work for already overworked law enforcement personnel. Can you imagine the paperwork these guys/ladies are going to have to fill out every time they pull someone over and find out they're illegal? ick.

Mistress of minis wrote:You did your job in Ok- not Az, so again, you're playing 'what ifs'. Im sure you did your job well over there. But until you come do the job here, and can then tell me its not happening after a few months- I'd be happy to hear about it. Otherwise, comprehend that Ok is not a border state that has had a large number of people trying to take advantage of the system in every way possible.

You're not familiar with Migrant streams, are you? Where do you think they go after they leave border states? Why do you think that Northern states have just as high an illegal immigrant problem as border states? They simply don't stay put. We're talking about people that live in fear but they are able to provide their children with a better life than they were in their home country. When you're on the run from the law, you don't stop.

In 2007, Oklahoma passed some similar laws and saw a mass exodus from the state so I'm fairly familiar with what Arizona will be going through.

Like I said before, a guest worker program is the way to go for a long-time fix; it's getting the federal juggernaut to get up off its fat a$$ and do something that's going to be the real challenge. I've lived in 2 other countries and visited several others that were much harsher on "visitors" than we are here in the states. Something needs to be done but overtaxing a system (law enforcement) that is already overburdened may not be the right way to kick uncle sam in the cajones and get him moving.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Right- but my second point there, was if the offender knows that they owe the State of Az several thousand dollars in jail fees- they are alot less likely to attempt to return. Especially if its in the 60 month window where it gets bumped to a felony. Once its a felony asset seizure is part of the deal, which can defray some of the costs as well.

I disagree, if they couldn't, or wouldn't, pay the fine in the first place they will simply attempt the same later on. If they are in danger of committing a felony, then they can simply ensure that they maintain few assets in the US; it isn't as if Mexico is going to permit the US to seize it's citizens' property. The greatest fear in this instance would be any jail time that could result from a felony conviction, and I'm not sure how that would square with federal immigration law. Its my assumption that the federal law, and punishment, would have primacy over anything the state would want to do.

Mistress of minis wrote:
As I said in earlier posts- theres likely to be an upfront cost to this. But I doubt it costs more than the burden of what we're already dealing with. Its sort of like an investment- theres an up front cost and it might take a while to see the dividends pay out. But I dont think it will take as long as the 1070 critics believe.

Yeah, I'm not claiming that this will cost more than the current system. I'm only objecting to the idea that the cost will be significantly defrayed by those convicted under HB1070.

Fateweaver wrote:It appears that AZ is going to pass another law that will deny birth certificates for babies born to illegal immigrant parents in AZ.

I'm not sure that AZ has the legal right to do that to a native-born American Citizen. Expect to see a strong Constitutional challenge here, and AZ to lose.

That said, I don't see why AZ can't pass a law that places the parents in presumptive unfitness due to de facto lawbreaking, thus mandating automatic severance of parental rights within the state, forcing deportation of the family if they want to stay together.

Relapse wrote:You seem to have an idealized view that every Mexican illegal is one of heaven's angels.

No, I do not. I did not state such an assumption, or make it a requirement of my post. You have only claimed that because it was easier to throw out a cheap point than to consider the argument presented. Lazy, poor form there Relapse.

I'll explain it again, Gwar! stated that putting one child in an orphanage while the parents are sent back to Mexico was cheaper, because if the parents stayed Gwar! assumes they'll just go on welfare. I explained this was not behaviour common in many people who are willing to pick up and move to another country for better economic opportunities.

I know and work with a lot of Mexicans and aside from the ones that do come over and leech from our government, there are also the gangbangers and drug runners that hang out over here. A lot of them don't get U.S. citizenship so that they can jump back across the border and evade extradition when the law gets after them for murder, rape, drugs, you name it.

Which has what to do with parents gaining citizenship because they had a child in the US? Are you actually reading the thread?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Mwahahaha!

Look away children! The foreigner will trick and confuse you with his strange customs! You make think he can read the Holy Document of Constitution, but he sees it with foreign eyes, and it's truth will not be revealed to him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Are foreigners not allowed to study US law now?

Do you have to be at least a permanent resident?

How many study US law?

I know there's an elective class here at the uni I work for. It's postgrad so there could be as few as ten people taking it, but that's just one uni in one city.

For the confused, the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with militias. There is a break in their for a reason. Two different trains of thoughts. Even assuming you must be part of a militia to have a firearm all US citizens are part of a milita. The militia of the United States.

Not sure how people interpret the 2nd Amendment to NOT have the page break and be just one sentence.

@JHDD. The problem is, the Constitution does NOT grant citizenship to children born of non-citizens. If one parent is a citizen than that child is by all rights a citizen. It is the same argument liberals use to defend Obamas citizenship. He was born on US soil and his mom was a citizen. Had neither of his parents been citizens, the fact he was born on a US owned base would have been moot. He would have been a non-citizen and ineligible for Presidency. Though it's funny he still can't prove it. LOL.

14th Amendment wrote:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There's no carve-out in the Constitution that I'm aware of.

Fateweaver wrote:For the confused, the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with militias. There is a break in their for a reason. Two different trains of thoughts.

That's one interpretation, yes.

Fateweaver wrote:
Even assuming you must be part of a militia to have a firearm all US citizens are part of a milita. The militia of the United States.

That isn't how its been thought of in US jurisprudence. Even if you want to think of the term in its broadest interpretation, you're still only considering 'able-bodied men'. Given that, you would be allowed a firearm at 18, and then have it taken away after you were no longer considered 'able-bodied'.

Fateweaver wrote:
Not sure how people interpret the 2nd Amendment to NOT have the page break and be just one sentence.

It is just one sentence, and there is no page break present. There are either 3 commas, or 1, depending on the version being considered, but there is no other punctuation aside from the period at the end.

Fateweaver wrote:
The problem is, the Constitution does NOT grant citizenship to children born of non-citizens.

The Constitution explicitly grants citizenship to all people born on US soil.

14th Amendment of the US Constitution, Sec. 1 wrote:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Fateweaver wrote:
If one parent is a citizen than that child is by all rights a citizen. It is the same argument liberals use to defend Obamas citizenship. He was born on US soil and his mom was a citizen. Had neither of his parents been citizens, the fact he was born on a US owned base would have been moot. He would have been a non-citizen and ineligible for Presidency.

Hawaii was a state when Obama was born. The citizenship status of his parents is therefore irrelevant.

Fateweaver wrote:
Though it's funny he still can't prove it. LOL.

His birth certificate has been offered as proof several times. I could ask you for yours, claim it was a forgery, and have the exact same level of credibility that anyone denying Obama's 'natural born citizenship' does.

Mistress of minis wrote:For first time offenders- its the same as trespassing- a misdemeanor, class 1. Bumps to a class 4 felony if they re-offend withing 60 months, and a class 2 if narcotics or human smuggling is involved.

" Directs the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of at least $500 for the first violation or at least $1,000 for subsequent offenses. " <---jail costs and a few $ on top. I think that answers some of your question. Even if they get out on bail(which will likely be set higher than the fees theyd have to pay- even if they skip out and dont pay it- its that much more insurance that they wont come back.

9 out of 10 times these are people that would be getting arrested anyways during regular law enforcement activities- its not like theyre going to be doing illegal immigrant sweeps- the law is not intended nor designed for that.

Sure is a shame about all the legal immigrants who won't want to live in Arizona due to your policies on Living While Brown, though. It's like you don't even want their tax dollars.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:For first time offenders- its the same as trespassing- a misdemeanor, class 1. Bumps to a class 4 felony if they re-offend withing 60 months, and a class 2 if narcotics or human smuggling is involved.

" Directs the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of at least $500 for the first violation or at least $1,000 for subsequent offenses. " <---jail costs and a few $ on top. I think that answers some of your question. Even if they get out on bail(which will likely be set higher than the fees theyd have to pay- even if they skip out and dont pay it- its that much more insurance that they wont come back.

9 out of 10 times these are people that would be getting arrested anyways during regular law enforcement activities- its not like theyre going to be doing illegal immigrant sweeps- the law is not intended nor designed for that.

Sure is a shame about all the legal immigrants who won't want to live in Arizona due to your policies on Living While Brown, though. It's like you don't even want their tax dollars.

And you know the legal immigrants are leaving how? Many legal immigrants support the measures- as they earned thier citizenship and dont like paying for a free ride for all the illegals either. My freinds and neighbors that happen to be legal immigrants are rather happy about it- as they dont feel its very discriminatory- the opposite ratehr as they feel that once the law has been in effect people wont think theyre illegals just because they have an accent.

But hey, if you personally know any immigrant citizens that are really leaving here in Arizona(which I sorta doubt) be sure to tell them how much I'll miss them. And if they need any help moving I've got some boxes they can have.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:For first time offenders- its the same as trespassing- a misdemeanor, class 1. Bumps to a class 4 felony if they re-offend withing 60 months, and a class 2 if narcotics or human smuggling is involved.

" Directs the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of at least $500 for the first violation or at least $1,000 for subsequent offenses. " <---jail costs and a few $ on top. I think that answers some of your question. Even if they get out on bail(which will likely be set higher than the fees theyd have to pay- even if they skip out and dont pay it- its that much more insurance that they wont come back.

9 out of 10 times these are people that would be getting arrested anyways during regular law enforcement activities- its not like theyre going to be doing illegal immigrant sweeps- the law is not intended nor designed for that.

Sure is a shame about all the legal immigrants who won't want to live in Arizona due to your policies on Living While Brown, though. It's like you don't even want their tax dollars.

I don't know how many Mexicans you know, but over half the people I know are from there, and most of the legals would love to see the illegals shipped out. They don't like the bad name the illegals give them.

dogma wrote:That's one interpretation, yes.

And its the one that matters, since SCOTUS essentially incorporated the right to bear arms to the states without the express requirement of service in a militia.

Mistress of minis wrote:And you know the legal immigrants are leaving how? Many legal immigrants support the measures- as they earned thier citizenship and dont like paying for a free ride for all the illegals either. My freinds and neighbors that happen to be legal immigrants are rather happy about it- as they dont feel its very discriminatory- the opposite ratehr as they feel that once the law has been in effect people wont think theyre illegals just because they have an accent.

Unless, of course, they walk outside without their wallet, get picked up by the police, and get that $500 in costs you mentioned. Because until proven otherwise, the police will be acting under the assumption that they're illegal.

At least, that's how policy will be directed when 1070 comes into effect, what with the portion I quoted previously.

And I wonder how much the state will incur in legal costs from nutters suing under the new action mentioned in the legislation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:I don't know how many Mexicans you know, but over half the people I know are from there, and most of the legals would love to see the illegals shipped out. They don't like the bad name the illegals give them.

I don't see why illegals give them a bad name, to be honest. Illegal immigrants pay more tax than they take out in emergency healthcare and the etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, right, a small subset of the illegals are welfare cheats.

Assuming they continue using the same methods to leech welfare that they have been, and they don't bring attention to themselves...

How does 1070 fix this again?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Relapse wrote:I don't know how many Mexicans you know, but over half the people I know are from there, and most of the legals would love to see the illegals shipped out. They don't like the bad name the illegals give them.

I don't see why illegals give them a bad name, to be honest. Illegal immigrants pay more tax than they take out in emergency healthcare and the etc.

Just to repeat what I said earlier in this thread, I know and work with a lot of Mexicans and aside from the illegals that do come over and leech from our government (not saying all do, though), there are also the gangbangers and drug runners that hang out over here. A lot of them don't get U.S. citizenship so that they can jump back across the border and evade extradition when the law gets after them for murder, rape, drugs, you name it.
The thing is, most of the Mexicans that are here legaly are pissed about it because it gives them a bad name, but they are scared to do anything because they have family back in Mexico that could end up dead if they did.

Right.

How 1070 going to stop this? They get picked up. They get fined. They get deported. They come back.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:And you know the legal immigrants are leaving how? Many legal immigrants support the measures- as they earned thier citizenship and dont like paying for a free ride for all the illegals either. My freinds and neighbors that happen to be legal immigrants are rather happy about it- as they dont feel its very discriminatory- the opposite ratehr as they feel that once the law has been in effect people wont think theyre illegals just because they have an accent.

Unless, of course, they walk outside without their wallet, get picked up by the police, and get that $500 in costs you mentioned. Because until proven otherwise, the police will be acting under the assumption that they're illegal.

At least, that's how policy will be directed when 1070 comes into effect, what with the portion I quoted previously.

And I wonder how much the state will incur in legal costs from nutters suing under the new action enumerated in the legislation?

Wow- you really are ignorant about how law enforcement here operates. You have no idea how 1070 will be directed- you just think you do.

Do innocent people get picked up/arrested? Yep, it happens- thats why we have judges and trials. At the prelim hearing IN the jail- all a citizen without papers would have to do- is provide thier information- its checked and thet get a 'Youre free to go, sorry about the inconvenience'. Just like anyone else it can happen. The 500$ fine is only applicable when/if they are found guilty, if they arent guilty theres no liability on their part- as someone to claims to have studied laws here- you should know that.

You're choosing to see the OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!!! media interpretation of this, and then acting like you're well informed on the issue. What you say here isnt going to change anything, the law has been passed- it goes into effect in 6 weeks or so. Theres no way the feds can act fast enough to stop it, as theres little grounds to actually do so- the court battle will be a lengthy one since a defense fund made of private donations is rather substantial already. So, lets have this discussion sometime down the road and we can see how well it works out.

Mistress of minis wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:And you know the legal immigrants are leaving how? Many legal immigrants support the measures- as they earned thier citizenship and dont like paying for a free ride for all the illegals either. My freinds and neighbors that happen to be legal immigrants are rather happy about it- as they dont feel its very discriminatory- the opposite ratehr as they feel that once the law has been in effect people wont think theyre illegals just because they have an accent.

Unless, of course, they walk outside without their wallet, get picked up by the police, and get that $500 in costs you mentioned. Because until proven otherwise, the police will be acting under the assumption that they're illegal.

At least, that's how policy will be directed when 1070 comes into effect, what with the portion I quoted previously.

And I wonder how much the state will incur in legal costs from nutters suing under the new action enumerated in the legislation?

Wow- you really are ignorant about how law enforcement here operates. You have no idea how 1070 will be directed- you just think you do.

Likewise.

Do innocent people get picked up/arrested? Yep, it happens- thats why we have judges and trials. At the prelim hearing IN the jail- all a citizen without papers would have to do- is provide thier information- its checked and thet get a 'Youre free to go, sorry about the inconvenience'. Just like anyone else it can happen. The 500$ fine is only applicable when/if they are found guilty, if they arent guilty theres no liability on their part- as someone to claims to have studied laws here- you should know that.

About what I thought.

So, again, how does that stop anyone who wouldn't have already been caught up in the welfare thing?

You're choosing to see the OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!!! media interpretation of this, and then acting like you're well informed on the issue. What you say here isnt going to change anything,

Really? I never would have guessed.

the law has been passed- it goes into effect in 6 weeks or so. Theres no way the feds can act fast enough to stop it,

They can ignore the illegals they get sent.

as theres little grounds to actually do so- the court battle will be a lengthy one since a defense fund made of private donations is rather substantial already. So, lets have this discussion sometime down the road and we can see how well it works out.

You are leaving? Clearly I am the victor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just a rough estimate of how much you think the state will have taken out of its budget by legal fees from nutters with an anti-immigration agenda suing because they think the authorities aren't going after illegals hard enough would be nice, thanks.

Have to see on that one. I just wanted to point out that a lot of Mexicans here legally really hate having illegals around and would like to see something done about them, also.
A lot of these illegals are among the reasons they left Mexico in the first place. A good friend of mine sweated blood getting his family out of TJ legally to get them away from the crime down there. Imagine his happiness to see illegals up here doing the same crap that made him sacrifice a so much to get his family away from their type.

Relapse wrote:Have to see on that one. I just wanted to point out that a lot of Mexicans here legally really hate having illegals around and would like to see something done about them, also.
A lot of these illegals are among the reasons they left Mexico in the first place. A good friend of mine sweated blood getting his family out of TJ legally to get them away from the crime down there. Imagine his happiness to see illegals up here doing the same crap that made him sacrifice a so much to get his family away from their type.

Well, we'll see what happens. I don't really understand why anyone would think that 1070 might deter gangbangers, but hey, maybe some good will come of it.

Definitely hope so, bro. I've had less than good experiences with illegals myself.

JEB_Stuart wrote:And its the one that matters, since SCOTUS essentially incorporated the right to bear arms to the states without the express requirement of service in a militia.

Heller v. D.C. specifies that the militia clause serves to modify the operative clause guaranteeing the right to bear arms. This is similar to what Fateweaver was describing, but isn't quite the same as it doesn't indicate that they are two separate ideas (ie. the amendment contains a dependent, and independent clause). That would require a semicolon, which the founders would have been well aware of.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Just a rough estimate of how much you think the state will have taken out of its budget by legal fees from nutters with an anti-immigration agenda suing because they think the authorities aren't going after illegals hard enough would be nice, thanks.

Well... this sounds like an Arizonan source.

Arizona immigration law could overwhelm state's court system, attorneys say.

Arizona's impending crackdown on illegal immigrants has the potential to overwhelm the state's court system with criminal and civil cases once enforcement begins, Arizona immigration attorneys Maria V. Jones and Kara Hartzler said.

Without accompanying immigration reform to make following the rules more practicable, enforcement of Senate Bill 1070 could triple the number of cases almost overnight, with no additional court staffing or funds to accommodate them, they warned.

Sounds like a great plan, Arizona...

Doesn't mean they have to go after everyone at once, though. A few really public examples might be enough to get the ball rolling, and scare a lot of illegals out. It might even bring on the extra reform talked about to help things along.

Just half assed speculation on my part here in hoping for a best case scenario, mind you.

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:Wasn't the law allowing infants born on american soil put in place around the time of the civil war to allow the ex-slaves to be considered american citizens? If so, we need to really look at that law and maybe remove it.

Personally I hate illegal immigration and its supporters. The whole "Well, they're just trying to better their familys' lives." argument especially. Why can't they get the part that they are ILLEGAL? I can't very well use that argument to defend a drug dealer now can I?

Also, illegal immigrants really have no rights seeing as though they aren't citizens of the united states. So, how can illegal immigrants protest in the streets without being deported or risking deportation? That's complete bull in my opinion.

Oh, and if you can point out a law that allows non-citizens the rights of citizens please point it out to me. Seriously, I mean this last part in the nicest tone possible.

What rights are you talking about?

Oh man, I've stayed away from this thread for too long and now I am behind. I will start with some earlier posts.

KK, I am talking about the rights given to american citizens by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Among those are the right to bear arms, the freedom of speech, etc.

Now, I am not sure about what Dogma meant about the whole assumption that illegals are protesting part. This part is not winnable for either side as doubts can be cast either way.

@Shuma,

I have no idea where you were going with the psychic and magician part. I think you mis-posted that in the wrong thread as it had nothing to do with what I said. It is a true fact, but affects this as much as the price of tea in China does.

Also, the basic freedoms are very,very broad. Freedom of speech can mean many things as can the second amendment(in fact that is argued on a near daily basis). However, I would like to point this out.

14th amendment wrote:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is the exact wording of the beginning of the 14th amendment. This means that anyone born in the country becomes a US citizen. Now Shuma, remember when I said that you cannot compare the two?

This is why, the above amendment is very, very narrowed in on what they wanted to convey and you cannot argue what they meant by this. Both are amendments, but the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment were originally submitted along with the Bill of Rights. The other amendments were added later on (the 14th was added in the year 1868) and worked on the issue of slavery and the newly freed slaves.

In fact, the 14th amendment was one of the few amendments created to help a specific group of people instead of the nation as a whole. Not only that, but it gives immigrants the chance to try to stay in the country just because their child is a US citizen. We have tried to fight this by saying that the child cannot sponsor the parents until he/she is 18 years old though.

This leads to orphaned children and now broken families as the law also allows us to separate child from mother.

This amendment needs fixing as they forgot to include a date setting the cut-off limit to who it can apply to. We can do this though with a new amendment that sets a grandfather clause or something to it.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Unless, of course, they walk outside without their wallet, get picked up by the police, and get that $500 in costs you mentioned. Because until proven otherwise, the police will be acting under the assumption that they're illegal.

And again, this is a risk most of the legal immigrants are willing to take. It's not even a very big risk, because walking outside without your wallet, and "getting picked up by the police" is already a headache waiting to happen, as I stated in an earlier post. Isn't that big of a risk anyways; as long as you're not doing anything to attract attention to yourself, talking to the police is an uncommon occurrence. A good majority of the voting population here is willing to have to remember their wallets, in order to ensure the government (state and/or federal) cracks down on the illegal immigration happening along our border.

halonachos wrote:This amendment needs fixing as they forgot to include a date setting the cut-off limit to who it can apply to. We can do this though with a new amendment that sets a grandfather clause or something to it.

And the second amendment needs fixing as they forgot to include a clause stating what "arms" are. You can fix that though with a grandfather clause.

Lordhat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Unless, of course, they walk outside without their wallet, get picked up by the police, and get that $500 in costs you mentioned. Because until proven otherwise, the police will be acting under the assumption that they're illegal.

And again, this is a risk most of the legal immigrants are willing to take. It's not even a very big risk, because walking outside without your wallet, and "getting picked up by the police" is already a headache waiting to happen, as I stated in an earlier post. Isn't that big of a risk anyways; as long as you're not doing anything to attract attention to yourself, talking to the police is an uncommon occurrence. A good majority of the voting population here is willing to have to remember their wallets, in order to ensure the government (state and/or federal) cracks down on the illegal immigration happening along our border.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how 1070 solves the problem of people who would have gotten through such checks previously with false ID.

@Shuma,

I have no idea where you were going with the psychic and magician part. I think you mis-posted that in the wrong thread as it had nothing to do with what I said. It is a true fact, but affects this as much as the price of tea in China does.

It was reference to the fact that it's highly unlikely the police can parce legal from illegal status in mass protests. You were supposing that they should not be given the right to do so, I was noting that it's not like they can do anything about it without infringing on the right to assemble and the right to protest of the citizens you would naturally also be placing under arrest.

As for differentiating a very solid clause with a more vague one within the constitution I'm not particularly certain that the status of exacting language within the clause is actually an artifact of writing that can make it easier or more difficult to repeal or change. It's quite obvious that it's not so singularly defined, but that is neither something to it's credit nor particularly to it's detriment. It's irrelevant insofar as both clauses have purposes both historically and in modern practice, differentiated almost solely by legal precedent and popularity. Something vague can be altered just as easily as something well defined, and the formation of citizen militias and a guarantor of personal protection during an era of weak national militaries and a non existent national police force is not so much stronger of a cause than that which permitted the addition of the fourteenth.

And again, this is a risk most of the legal immigrants are willing to take. It's not even a very big risk, because walking outside without your wallet, and "getting picked up by the police" is already a headache waiting to happen, as I stated in an earlier post. Isn't that big of a risk anyways; as long as you're not doing anything to attract attention to yourself, talking to the police is an uncommon occurrence. A good majority of the voting population here is willing to have to remember their wallets, in order to ensure the government (state and/or federal) cracks down on the illegal immigration happening along our border.

As a technicality these laws actually do absolutely nothing to deter illegal migration. They may seem like a level of control, but its highly unlikely they will lead to a significant enough increase in deportations to offset the number incoming illegals. Given the high cost of initiation as well as the largely unconstitutional nature of the bill itself it's likely to end up costing Arizona significantly more than it will save financially without noticeably easing the burden placed on the state by the presence of the illegals. A good majority of the voting populace wants something, anything, to make this problem go away. That doesn't make this a good law, and it doesn't make its enforcement particularly feasible considering Arizonas fiscal situation.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how 1070 solves the problem of people who would have gotten through such checks previously with false ID.

According to what I read in Wiki, a lot of illegals are leaving the state to avoid the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB1070

Check the impact section of the article.

Relapse wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how 1070 solves the problem of people who would have gotten through such checks previously with false ID.

According to what I read in Wiki, a lot of illegals are leaving the state to avoid the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB1070

Check the impact section of the article.

The article that is based off of notes that they are going to texas and california, not back to their home countries, though It's unlikely arizonans really care about the distinction. Immigration flight is rarely anything but a repositioning within America itself as previous local crackdowns have shown.

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:Wasn't the law allowing infants born on american soil put in place around the time of the civil war to allow the ex-slaves to be considered american citizens? If so, we need to really look at that law and maybe remove it.

Personally I hate illegal immigration and its supporters. The whole "Well, they're just trying to better their familys' lives." argument especially. Why can't they get the part that they are ILLEGAL? I can't very well use that argument to defend a drug dealer now can I?

Also, illegal immigrants really have no rights seeing as though they aren't citizens of the united states. So, how can illegal immigrants protest in the streets without being deported or risking deportation? That's complete bull in my opinion.

Oh, and if you can point out a law that allows non-citizens the rights of citizens please point it out to me. Seriously, I mean this last part in the nicest tone possible.

What rights are you talking about?

Oh man, I've stayed away from this thread for too long and now I am behind. I will start with some earlier posts.

KK, I am talking about the rights given to american citizens by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Among those are the right to bear arms, the freedom of speech, etc.

Some of the constitution applies only to citizens and some applies to non-citizens as well.

And it doesn't really address what I meant.

If they stay, and they have fake ID which is realistic enough to have fooled social services, in what way are they affected by this?

Oh, and the penalties have apparently gone down from $500 to $100 and from 6 months to 20 days for a first time offence.

I find it funny that people from outside the US want to mention the 2nd amendment. As far as I know, the U.S. is the only country that includes the rights of the bearing of arms and militias in the structure and wording of their Constitution.

The constant rehashing of 1070 is also humorous. That law was written and later revised with certain explicit criteria for the reqiurement of ID... all of which was discussed elsewhere in this forum.

This thread is about the question of "Anchor Babies".
What Arizona is proposing is that if the parents are found to be in this country illegally, then the state has the right to deny them a certificate of birth.
Is that unconstitutional, maybe, let the courts decide that.
The idea though is to discourage a mother from coming here illegally simply to have her child as a means of becoming a resident alien.
Some people do not see that as an issue, but it happens and frequently. And yes, these mothers then qualify for a variety of Welfare programs as a result.

People want to talk about the "rights" of these people that have already shown a total disrespect for the laws of this country.
What about the "Rights" of the people that are here legally?
What about the rights of the actual citizens of this country?
Do they not matter?

As I understand it, there is a significant amount of case law which supports the amendment giving citizenship to everyone born in the USA.

As such the 1070 denial of a birth certificate would seem to be unconstitutional, however we shall have to wait for a case to be brought, which may have to go all the way up to the SCOTUS.

To clarify... AZ 1070 has little to do with the Anchor Babies issue. That law is still in the "writing" stage. It only gets mention due to it is being written. What it will actually say is still to be seen.

helgrenze wrote:I find it funny that people from outside the US want to mention the 2nd amendment. As far as I know, the U.S. is the only country that includes the rights of the bearing of arms and militias in the structure and wording of their Constitution.

Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Constitution of Cuba "When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution.""'

Chapter IV, Article 60 of the Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) "The State shall (...) arm the entire people and fortify the country on the basis of equipping the army and the people politically and ideologically."

Article 10 of Mexico's Constitution states the following: "Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms within their domicile, for their safety and legitimate defense, except those forbidden by Federal Law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Militia, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms."[7]

Under Sharia law, there is an intrinsic freedom to own arms

Under Swiss law, certain adult males who have received training in the Swiss armed forces are reservists who are required under law to keep their official firearms at home.

helgrenze wrote:To clarify... AZ 1070 has little to do with the Anchor Babies issue. That law is still in the "writing" stage. It only gets mention due to it is being written. What it will actually say is still to be seen.

The point still stands.

It's probably a waste of time to discuss as someone will bring up the constitutional issue during the formation of the law, and it may get dropped before it goes much farther.

reds8n wrote:

helgrenze wrote:I find it funny that people from outside the US want to mention the 2nd amendment. As far as I know, the U.S. is the only country that includes the rights of the bearing of arms and militias in the structure and wording of their Constitution.

Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Constitution of Cuba "When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution.""'

Chapter IV, Article 60 of the Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) "The State shall (...) arm the entire people and fortify the country on the basis of equipping the army and the people politically and ideologically."

Article 10 of Mexico's Constitution states the following: "Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms within their domicile, for their safety and legitimate defense, except those forbidden by Federal Law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Militia, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms."[7]

Under Sharia law, there is an intrinsic freedom to own arms

Under Swiss law, certain adult males who have received training in the Swiss armed forces are reservists who are required under law to keep their official firearms at home.

I did say "as far as I know".
But if you wish to compare... 4 of the above are basically conditional, The 2nd amendment isn't. as for the other one.. 'Intrinsic' is not the same as 'written'.

..can the Constituitional NEVER be suspended then ?

Do all USA citizens, even felons, get to own firearms ?

All U.S. citizen have the right to bear arms. A felony conviction brings forfiture of your rights.

In your examples above;
Cuba gives no guarentee of the right, only the right to defend the nation, with arms if no other recourse is available.
N. Korea: It kinda helps to read the whole article.....

Article 60.
The State shall implement the line of self-reliant defence, the import of which is to train the army into a cadre army and modernize the army, arm the entire people and fortify the country on the basis of equipping the army and the people politically and ideologically.

as well as the chapter (titled "National Defense") that includes it and not just the Wiki crib notes. Weapons are not privately owned, but are property of the state.

Mexico: Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms

Swiss: that law covers only people with military training.

helgrenze wrote:All U.S. citizen have the right to bear arms. A felony conviction brings forfiture of your rights.

So , in other words, it's entirely conditional upon the actions of your Govt. with regards to your legal status. Wow.

Wrong... it is conditional on the actions of the individual.
If you commit, and are convicted of, a felony, certain of your rights are forfeit.

The Govt. cannot make laws that "Infringe" on that right for everyone. They can, however, make laws that remove those rights from individuals that commit certain crimes.

What's all this got to do with birth certificates?

Not a damn thing really....

Like you said before... the constitutional issue will probably be brought up well before passage and likely kill that particular bill.

Kilkrazy wrote:What's all this got to do with birth certificates?

You can't have a birth without a certificate. prudent parents plan ahead and take care of that weeks, even months before the birth (sometimes years). Otherwise its very rushed. The government is quite strict and they won't let you complete labor until the proper forms are filled out and notarized. Everyone forgets the notary.

helgrenze wrote:
If you commit, and are convicted of, a felony, certain of your rights are forfeit..

Because, of cause, everyone convicted is guilty of what they did, in every single case ever in the entire history of the country.

So, as long as you can trust what the Govt. does, then you're fine. Brilliant.


So, it's conditional then.

Now see, thats what I would call 'troll baiting'.

But, since you seem so keen to learn American Law....
I am sure you can find a school that will teach it to you... For a Price.

helgrenze wrote:'troll baiting'.

I find it funny that people from outside the US want to mention the 2nd amendment.

But, since you seem so keen to learn American Law....
I am sure you can find a school that will teach it to you... For a Price.

I'll wait until you've studied the laws and Cons. of other nations, which you are, apparently with no sense of irony, willing to comment on.

..see ?

I also tried to get the thread back on track.
I doubt England has the extent of immigration problems we have here:
Daily illegal border crossings. Pregnant women almost giving birth on the roadside, just over the border. Gangs conducting turf wars on both sides of said border. Agents of the INS being attacked for escorting some-one to the border. Agents being attacked for enforcing the laws in this country. Citizens being shot on their own property by either illegals or the coyotes that transport them.

Is Arizona doing everything right? probably not. But the problem is bad enough that the state legislators felt the need to address it with these laws.
Constitutionality will be decided in the proper courts.

Just note, only one law was passed 1070, and that is not going into effect until the end of July.
The other, the one this thread is about, would deny a state certificate of birth to a child of a woman that is in this country illegally. It is an attempt at limitting the "anchor babies" issue.

Which has NOTHING to do with the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

As for my comments on other countries constitutions... I did preface it with "As far as I know", YOU posted specifics which, on comparrison, fell short of the point you attempted to make.

helgrenze wrote:I doubt England has the extent of immigration problems we have here

HAHAHAHA!

AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!

MUAHGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

/faceroll

You have no idea. We are lucky in that we have literally ONE route in or out (the tunnel), while the US has a bajillion miles of border.

You may have women giving birth on the road, we have people strapping themselves under trains.

helgrenze wrote:
I doubt England has the extent of immigration problems we have here:
Daily illegal border crossings. Pregnant women almost giving birth on the roadside, just over the border. Gangs conducting turf wars on both sides of said border. Agents of the INS being attacked for escorting some-one to the border. Agents being attacked for enforcing the laws in this country. Citizens being shot on their own property by either illegals or the coyotes that transport them.

..coyotes no, the rest, yes, to varying degrees. We have less shootings of course.

Of course it is "funny" that someone not from the country etc etc yadda yadda.

We should enforce that rule on ALL the boards, sure make YMDC a lot easier.

YOU posted specifics which, on comparison, fell short of the point you attempted to make.

I disagree entirely, I don't think the USA Cons. offers any more or less protection than many other countries laws and Cons. including some of those offered, regardless of age or anything as, ultimately, they are All, without a doubt dependent upon the actions of the countries Govts. NO law or Con. is "invulnerable" to misuse, abuse, amendment, improvement, circumvention or even just being largely irrelevant when it all hits the fan.

helgrenze wrote:As for my comments on other countries constitutions... I did preface it with "As far as I know", YOU posted specifics which, on comparrison, fell short of the point you attempted to make.

helgrenze wrote:I find it funny that people from outside the US want to mention the 2nd amendment. As far as I know, the U.S. is the only country that includes the rights of the bearing of arms and militias in the structure and wording of their Constitution.

How very appropriate to be moving the goalposts in the middle of the world cup.

Point?

they should just execute illegals. that would be a better deterrent.

Yeah... sure... real nice AZ. Why don't you go beating up little kids too while you are at it. Oh wait, that's what this law is for!

This man is why I hate Arizona with a passion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

usernamesareannoying wrote:they should just execute illegals. that would be a better deterrent.

Stay classy there Dakka.

This is going to go nowhere now that we have, at last, arrived here.