Some Exodus planned out of Arizona

[DEDixon 39]

legal US citizen hispanics are going to have to deal with racial profiling. It's gonna happen. I'm not saying they should leave the state but it's not their fault people immigrate illegally to this country and I don't think they should have to pay for it.

I think they have a right to complain. The illegal immigrants don't.

r u sure the legal ones aren't helping the illegal ones get here? i know of many such cases.

[Susita 175]

r u sure the legal ones aren't helping the illegal ones get here? i know of many such cases.

Of course it happens, but you have to remember a lot of people also help their family come here legally and do the right thing. We can't just say "oh some people help illegals so let's punish them all."

To be honest, the majority of legal hispanics I'm talking about in Arizona were born in this country and in some cases so were their parents and grandparents. In a lot of cases, they were here before the US took over AZ in the Spanish American War. They're Chicanos. The legal US citizens totally outweigh the number of illegal immigrants in AZ (although the # of illegal immigrants is also astounding).

My husband is here legally from Peru and there's no way he'd get himself involved with helping people get here illegally. From personal experience, I would say that it's not as common of an occurrence as you might like to believe.

What it comes down to is that you can't punish everyone for the actions of some IMO. We can't let a few rotten apples ruin it for the bunch just because it's convenient for the gov't of AZ.

[Susita 175]

Why assume the worst? In VA, where similar laws exist at county level, racial profiling is a non-issue, yet the law still works and apparently works well. With the legal safeguards now in AZ SB 1070, what's to say that racial profiling will even be an issue?

I think the only people who should be concerned are those the law is intended to uncover, the illegal immigrants.

The history behind the writing of the bill (i.e. the people who were involved in writing it) worries me.

[Pooky 3,343]

The history behind the writing of the bill (i.e. the people who were involved in writing it) worries me.

And that just astounds me. The Bill is written to replicate Federal Law and make it enforceable by local law enforcement, in conjunction with the proper Federal authorities. And yet you're worried because of who wrote it?

Look to the content and decide if that is reasonable. If you disagree, then you disagree with current Federal law and there is no point in discussing further, as no-one has yet attacked the Federal laws as unconstitutional, unfair and discriminatory.

[Susita 175]

And that just astounds me. The Bill is written to replicate Federal Law and make it enforceable by local law enforcement, in conjunction with the proper Federal authorities. And yet you're worried because of who wrote it?

Look to the content and decide if that is reasonable. If you disagree, then you disagree with current Federal law and there is no point in discussing further, as no-one has yet attacked the Federal laws as unconstitutional, unfair and discriminatory.

It astounds me that there are so many avid supporters of a bill whose intentions are so questionable. The bill is also not an exact mirror image of federal law and we cannot treat it as such.

So we're just going to have to agree to disagree Pooky. It's always good to have two sides to an argument, if no one disagreed with the bill in the first place there would have been no revisions made and THAT wouldn't have been good. If no one pushed for a bill in the first place there'd be no control of illegal immigration either.

So, debate is good

[Advanced Aardvark 82]

And that just astounds me. The Bill is written to replicate Federal Law and make it enforceable by local law enforcement, in conjunction with the proper Federal authorities. And yet you're worried because of who wrote it?

Look to the content and decide if that is reasonable. If you disagree, then you disagree with current Federal law and there is no point in discussing further, as no-one has yet attacked the Federal laws as unconstitutional, unfair and discriminatory.

Correct. One of the people who helped to write the AZ statute is a Law Professor who specializes in Immigration Law; It is a mirror of the Federal statute. It is indeed scary to have lawyers writing laws...

The AZ bill simply moves the opportunity for enforcement to the local level. There WILL be increased opportunioty for enforcement. As for profiling, if local police were checking the immigration status of middle age Irish looking guys, in an area where 99.99999% of the illegals were hispanic, you would want to look at the competence of those police. In an area with excpetionally high rates of illegals who are hispanic, such as in AZ, checking hispanics is not profiling, it is statistics. I would not expect to see high rates of hispanic profiling for immigration violations in Chinatown. Again, statistics and common sense are guiding factors.

As illegals scurry out of AZ, to other states, similar laws will be enacted in these states as well. The cost of local, county and state services consumed by illegals is a hot button issue, at a time when many states are running very large budget deficits. As news about the decrease in expenses for these services in AZ is documented and disseminated, it is a certainty that more states will adopt this type of law, to encourage illegals to go elsewhere.

I would love to see my taxes in NJ decline. Can we have a show of hands from people who enjoy paying ever increasing property, sales and income taxes in support of illegals?

[BelleSade 3]

I can't wait for this Hispanic label to be dropped. It assumes all Hispanics have a wonderful relationship with each other, and forgets that there are numerous countries that said people come from and the different cultures within each countries. Spanish and/or Hispanics doesn't necessarily mean illegal.

The ILLEGALS that have the stereotyped Hispanic look will just move to another state, probably.

[Susita 175]

I can't wait for this Hispanic label to be dropped. It assumes all Hispanics have a wonderful relationship with each other, and forgets that there are numerous countries that said people come from and the different cultures within each countries. Spanish and/or Hispanics doesn't necessarily mean illegal.

The ILLEGALS that have the stereotyped Hispanic look will just move to another state, probably.

That's what I've been getting at. My family is not illegal but we're hispanic, I guess because we speak Spanish .

It's like putting Americans, British, Irish, Scottish, New Zealanders, Australians, etc etc all in one category because they speak English... when we are incredibly different. Don't you agree?

My poor husband was told to go back to Mexico once while we were buying coffee at 7-11. There was a protest of illegal immigration outside. He told the guy at the counter that he'd never been to Mexico but would like to go to Cancun My husband has a good sense of humor but it DID really bother him to be yelled at for no reason other than he's hispanic.

[Pooky 3,343]

It astounds me that there are so many avid supporters of a bill whose intentions are so questionable. The bill is also not an exact mirror image of federal law and we cannot treat it as such.

So we're just going to have to agree to disagree Pooky. It's always good to have two sides to an argument, if no one disagreed with the bill in the first place there would have been no revisions made and THAT wouldn't have been good. If no one pushed for a bill in the first place there'd be no control of illegal immigration either.

So, debate is good

No, the law is not the exact mirror image of Federal law. It allows local law enforcement to investigate legal status of people and it specifically prohibits racial profiling.

Again, people who oppose AZ SB 1070 are missing the central issue. The law would not be necessary if Washington (the purple version that covers both blue and red sides) actually listened to the overwhelming majority of people in the USA, up around 70% of them, who want the Federal government to enforce the laws it already has on the books.

The majority who want enforcement are very much bipartisan and fully appreciate how Washington, since Reagan in '85 and under successive Republican and Democrat administrations, has fed this problem, rather than enforce the laws which could have avoided the current situation in which this country finds itself. And the Arizona Bill is doing something rare. It is getting the public, usually so apathetic and laissez-faire, to become engaged, which is a good sign. It shows the electorate cares and it shows they want their elected representatives to finally do some actual representation.

Now that would make a change.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Pooky

[Susita 175]

Again, people who oppose AZ SB 1070 are missing the central issue. The law would not be necessary if Washington (the purple version that covers both blue and red sides) actually listened to the overwhelming majority of people in the USA, up around 70% of them, who want the Federal government to enforce the laws it already has on the books.

I agree on this. The state should not have to be using it's resources (especially their police force - who have enough work to do as it is) to enforce a law that the federal government should already be enforcing.

[Pooky 3,343]

I agree on this. The state should not have to be using it's resources (especially their police force - who have enough work to do as it is) to enforce a law that the federal government should already be enforcing.

Agreed 100%.

But until Washington is finally forced to step up to the plate and enforce the Federal version, what is a state like Arizona to do? The Bill is not ideal, but it is something to work with, in the absence of a properly resourced and supported ICE.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The AZ law doesn't mirror the federal law. Federal immigration law enforcement officers are allowed to racially profile; AZ law enforement officers are not. Feds can stop someone suspected of being illegal without provocation; AZ officers cannot. I like the federal law better. The AZ law is too soft.

[Advanced Aardvark 82]

The AZ law doesn't mirror the federal law. Federal immigration law enforcement officers are allowed to racially profile; AZ law enforement officers are not. Feds can stop someone suspected of being illegal without provocation; AZ officers cannot. I like the federal law better. The AZ law is too soft.

The real motivation behind the AZ iteration of the federal statute, is to make AZ a less desirable nesting place for illegals. Preliminary reports about school registration declines indicate that this may be working.

A couple of years ago, NJ began to enforce verification of employee immigration status more closely. One of the results was an exodus of Brazilians who had been working in restaurants in the Newark area. Local TV stations ran some stories about why these people were returning to Brazil. The response was almost uniform: We can not work here, and we can work in Brazil, so the quality of life at home will be better.

Part of the equation, about encouring illegals to egress the US, should focus on making a return to their homeland more desirable than being an illegal here. Once home, I encourage these folks to apply to come to the US legally. This really is about following the rules, and affording equal treatment to people who come here legally.

[Scott & Lai 12]

It's like putting Americans, British, Irish, Scottish, New Zealanders, Australians, etc etc all in one category because they speak English... when we are incredibly different. Don't you agree?

That is done. The category is called "White".

Again, people who oppose AZ SB 1070 are missing the central issue. The law would not be necessary if Washington (the purple version that covers both blue and red sides) actually listened to the overwhelming majority of people in the USA, up around 70% of them, who want the Federal government to enforce the laws it already has on the books.

The majority who want enforcement are very much bipartisan and fully appreciate how Washington, since Reagan in '85 and under successive Republican and Democrat administrations, has fed this problem, rather than enforce the laws which could have avoided the current situation in which this country finds itself. And the Arizona Bill is doing something rare. It is getting the public, usually so apathetic and laissez-faire, to become engaged, which is a good sign. It shows the electorate cares and it shows they want their elected representatives to finally do some actual representation.

Now that would make a change.

:thumbs: