Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.