Aa
U.S., Mexico agree to act on illegal immigration -- by suing Arizona
Interesting column by Larry Elder - Syndicated Columnist - 6/24/2010
Larry ElderU.S. Attorney General Eric Holder questioned the constitutionality of Arizona's new immigration law -- before admitting he hadn't read it. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just confirmed that the feds plan to sue to stop the law. And Mexico, whose president said Arizona's law "opens a Pandora's box of the worst abuses in the history of humanity," recently filed a brief in U.S. federal court to side with the law's opponents.
Is Arizona's law, scheduled to go into effect next month, an unconstitutional assault on all things moral and decent? How else to describe the over-the-top reaction to -- and the often completely false description of -- the law by people who apparently neither read nor understood it?
A New York Times sports writer, for example, said, "The law makes the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and directs the police to question people about their immigration status and demand to see their documents if there is reason to suspect they are illegal." Federal law already requires that noncitizens carry documents to prove that they are in the country legally. Arizona makes failure to do so a state crime.
What does the Arizona law direct the police to do?
The law says: "For any lawful stop, detention or arrest ... where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien ... a reasonable attempt shall be made ... to determine the immigration status of the person." This means that if you (a) are lawfully stopped and (b) a cop reasonably believes you may be here illegally, then (c) the officer will check into your status. That's a lot of hoops to jump through.
What is a "lawful stop"?
Lawmakers added an explanatory note to the Arizona law. It says, "A lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law." This is important, and it's ignored or mischaracterized by some of the law's critics. The "lawful stop" -- which may trigger a further inquiry about a person's status -- must be for reasons other than a suspicion that one is here illegally.
What constitutes "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal alien?
The Supreme Court has defined "reasonable suspicion" as "common-sense" factors that an officer must be able to explain. It cannot be a mere hunch. A bad cop can abuse any law. And yes, there are gray areas in this one. But officers operate under this kind of imprecision every day.
Can a person be stopped because he or she "looks" Mexican? Again, the stop must be for a reason other than a suspicion of illegal entry. But after a lawful stop, can "looking Mexican" trigger the suspicion of illegality? The law says: "A law enforcement official ... may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." Ethnicity or race can be a factor if coupled with, for example, the commission of a traffic offense while having no driver's license or other government-issued ID and not being able to speak English.
What proof must be shown?
The law says proof of legal residence can be an Arizona driver's license, an Arizona-issued ID, a tribal ID or a federal, state or local government-issued ID.
U.S. Attorney General Holder says the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." To repeat, racial profiling -- using race or ethnicity as the sole criterion -- is illegal under U.S. and Arizona law.
Seventy-three percent of Americans approve of "requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status." Sixty-seven percent approve of "allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify legal status." And 62 percent believe in "allowing police to question anyone they think may be in the country illegally" -- which goes even further than does the Arizona law.
Yes, illegal aliens are humans. They also broke the law and cut in front of others who are trying to come here legally. Most illegal aliens from south-of-the-border countries are "unskilled." They compete against unskilled Americans -- often while taking advantage of taxpayer-provided education, healthcare and other benefits.
Many Americans are open to increasing legal immigration and to a temporary worker program -- but the debate is pointless without secure borders. The Arizona-Mexico border remains porous and dangerous. And nearly half of illegal aliens enter legally but overstay -- with little or nothing done to keep track of them.
How does Mexico treat illegals in its country from Central American countries? The president of Mexico's National Human Rights Commission once said, "One of the saddest national failings on immigration issues is the contradiction in demanding that the North [the United States] respect migrants' rights, which we are not capable of guaranteeing in the South."
For Information on Larry Elder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Elder
Larry ElderU.S. Attorney General Eric Holder questioned the constitutionality of Arizona's new immigration law -- before admitting he hadn't read it. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just confirmed that the feds plan to sue to stop the law. And Mexico, whose president said Arizona's law "opens a Pandora's box of the worst abuses in the history of humanity," recently filed a brief in U.S. federal court to side with the law's opponents.
Is Arizona's law, scheduled to go into effect next month, an unconstitutional assault on all things moral and decent? How else to describe the over-the-top reaction to -- and the often completely false description of -- the law by people who apparently neither read nor understood it?
A New York Times sports writer, for example, said, "The law makes the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and directs the police to question people about their immigration status and demand to see their documents if there is reason to suspect they are illegal." Federal law already requires that noncitizens carry documents to prove that they are in the country legally. Arizona makes failure to do so a state crime.
What does the Arizona law direct the police to do?
The law says: "For any lawful stop, detention or arrest ... where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien ... a reasonable attempt shall be made ... to determine the immigration status of the person." This means that if you (a) are lawfully stopped and (b) a cop reasonably believes you may be here illegally, then (c) the officer will check into your status. That's a lot of hoops to jump through.
What is a "lawful stop"?
Lawmakers added an explanatory note to the Arizona law. It says, "A lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law." This is important, and it's ignored or mischaracterized by some of the law's critics. The "lawful stop" -- which may trigger a further inquiry about a person's status -- must be for reasons other than a suspicion that one is here illegally.
What constitutes "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal alien?
The Supreme Court has defined "reasonable suspicion" as "common-sense" factors that an officer must be able to explain. It cannot be a mere hunch. A bad cop can abuse any law. And yes, there are gray areas in this one. But officers operate under this kind of imprecision every day.
Can a person be stopped because he or she "looks" Mexican? Again, the stop must be for a reason other than a suspicion of illegal entry. But after a lawful stop, can "looking Mexican" trigger the suspicion of illegality? The law says: "A law enforcement official ... may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." Ethnicity or race can be a factor if coupled with, for example, the commission of a traffic offense while having no driver's license or other government-issued ID and not being able to speak English.
What proof must be shown?
The law says proof of legal residence can be an Arizona driver's license, an Arizona-issued ID, a tribal ID or a federal, state or local government-issued ID.
U.S. Attorney General Holder says the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." To repeat, racial profiling -- using race or ethnicity as the sole criterion -- is illegal under U.S. and Arizona law.
Seventy-three percent of Americans approve of "requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status." Sixty-seven percent approve of "allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify legal status." And 62 percent believe in "allowing police to question anyone they think may be in the country illegally" -- which goes even further than does the Arizona law.
Yes, illegal aliens are humans. They also broke the law and cut in front of others who are trying to come here legally. Most illegal aliens from south-of-the-border countries are "unskilled." They compete against unskilled Americans -- often while taking advantage of taxpayer-provided education, healthcare and other benefits.
Many Americans are open to increasing legal immigration and to a temporary worker program -- but the debate is pointless without secure borders. The Arizona-Mexico border remains porous and dangerous. And nearly half of illegal aliens enter legally but overstay -- with little or nothing done to keep track of them.
How does Mexico treat illegals in its country from Central American countries? The president of Mexico's National Human Rights Commission once said, "One of the saddest national failings on immigration issues is the contradiction in demanding that the North [the United States] respect migrants' rights, which we are not capable of guaranteeing in the South."
For Information on Larry Elder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Elder
The probable cause comes in here --- I get stopped for speeding, am asked for a DL, can't produce it -- they have probable cause to suspect that I'm not on the up and up. Maybe my DL has been revoked or suspended, maybe I'm wanted for something, etc; in someone else' case, maybe they don't have a license or they aren't here legally -- again, probable cause. It's not profiling; it's the law - we have to carry proper ID and if we don't, we risk going to jail. If a legal immigrant can show the proper ID (just like I have to do), s/he goes on her/his merry way, just like I do.
Sorry, back to the Mexican issue...I agree with Lladvocate...other countries should not be able to influence any countries legal decisions. What a can of worms that could open.....
Same laws and regulations around ID apply here. I am not necessarily required to carry it at all times, however if I am driving a vehicle, must have my drivers license etc. That is not the part of the law that bothers me. My issue is that they did not define probable cause. For example, the police cannot just pull me over or stop me on the street for no reason and demand ID, then haul me away if I cannot properly provide it. They must have a reason to stop me, such as speeding, etc. This law allows police to stop "suspected" illegal immigrants and ask for proof of citizenship. I know it does not specify latinos, but we all know that is what it means. So it is not the illegal immigrants getting caught that I find disturbing - it is more that a legal immigrant or American born of latino descent can essentially be stopped for not much more reason then that they are latino. I know the police say that is not what they are doing, but this law opens the door for it to happen if they choose. So I do think at the end of the day, constitutional rights are being violated. This of course is just an opinion based on what I have read of your constitution....I am certainly not claiming to be any expert..lol.
I have already said my opinion of the law but regardless the opinion of any members of the government of Mexico should not play a part in this decision as it does not concern how we have treated anyone in their country or who lawfully immigrated here. I would think in terms of standard law, once a person enters another country they are subject to their specific laws and if those laws are of concern to some people, either for or against they should be decided by the government of that country, not other countries. The United States has a very specific series of laws based on constitutional principles and I do not believe the laws of Mexico to be within that standard so I would strongly disagree with that aspect. Every country should make legal decisions of its own and not be subject to other countries' specific legislature and regulations.
I find it curious that Senator Kyl met with Obama. The end result of the meeting is that Obama will not close the border without amnesty for the illegals here. Obama denies it but Kyl sticks to the story. I believe the Senator.
"Obama tells Kyl in private Oval Office meeting: I won’t secure border b/c then Republicans will have no reason to support “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Sunday, June 20th at 8:00AM EDT
195 Comments
promoted from the diaries. Cold Warrior, the author of this post, shot this video himself, and posted it at youtube.
On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”
Sen. Kyl also said he reminded President Obama that the President and the Congress have an obligation, a duty, to secure the border. I shot the following video of Sen. Kyl while sitting next to the man who asked the question."
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6qOtpNochU
"Obama tells Kyl in private Oval Office meeting: I won’t secure border b/c then Republicans will have no reason to support “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Sunday, June 20th at 8:00AM EDT
195 Comments
promoted from the diaries. Cold Warrior, the author of this post, shot this video himself, and posted it at youtube.
On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”
Sen. Kyl also said he reminded President Obama that the President and the Congress have an obligation, a duty, to secure the border. I shot the following video of Sen. Kyl while sitting next to the man who asked the question."
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6qOtpNochU
I think anyone can participate in an action that has already been filed, even if they aren't in the US.
The thing that gets me, is that *I*, a citizen born in this country, must carry ID with me at all times. If I'm driving a vehicle, I have to have my license with me. If I don't have "documentation" (my license), I can be taken to jail.......why should someone from another country, who entered illegally, be afforded "privileges" that *I* don't have? Why does asking for documentation, constitute "profiling" --- we have to do it all the time.........
According to a law recently passed In FL, we can't even renew a driver's license without birth certificates, marriage licenses, proof of residence (i.e at least 2 bills that prove we live somewhere), passport, etc. We used to take our license in, show it to the clerk, take an eye test, get our pic taken and we were good to go.....
I had to provide my birth certificate when I got my first license at 16; then I had to provide my marriage license when my name changed at age 18; I haven't changed anything since then, except my address.........I've now lived in my same home for 17 yrs; why should I suddenly have to produce all this documentation to prove who I am?
I have a co-worker who has a "live in"; she will have a hard time renewing her DL because they aren't married and he pays the bills, so she doesn't even have anything that "proves" where she lives.........yet, she is an American, born and raised in this country.........
And they file lawsuits against "profiling" -- talk about frivolous lawsuits.......
The thing that gets me, is that *I*, a citizen born in this country, must carry ID with me at all times. If I'm driving a vehicle, I have to have my license with me. If I don't have "documentation" (my license), I can be taken to jail.......why should someone from another country, who entered illegally, be afforded "privileges" that *I* don't have? Why does asking for documentation, constitute "profiling" --- we have to do it all the time.........
According to a law recently passed In FL, we can't even renew a driver's license without birth certificates, marriage licenses, proof of residence (i.e at least 2 bills that prove we live somewhere), passport, etc. We used to take our license in, show it to the clerk, take an eye test, get our pic taken and we were good to go.....
I had to provide my birth certificate when I got my first license at 16; then I had to provide my marriage license when my name changed at age 18; I haven't changed anything since then, except my address.........I've now lived in my same home for 17 yrs; why should I suddenly have to produce all this documentation to prove who I am?
I have a co-worker who has a "live in"; she will have a hard time renewing her DL because they aren't married and he pays the bills, so she doesn't even have anything that "proves" where she lives.........yet, she is an American, born and raised in this country.........
And they file lawsuits against "profiling" -- talk about frivolous lawsuits.......
I still don't understand how Mexico can be a participant in legal action. They can condemn verbally or offer opinion as anyone can, but it doesn't make sense to me that they can participate in legal action. How curious.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
