Filipinos Against Arizona Immigration Law SB1070

[A and T 82]

LOL , per this article

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-arizona-immigration-20100729,0,3606702.story

"U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Wednesday halted implementation of the parts of the law that require police to determine the status of people they stop and think are in the country illegally. She also forbade the state from charging anyone for a new crime of failing to possess immigration documents.

Bolton's ruling found that the Obama administration was likely to prevail at trial in proving the two provisions, and two other ones in the sweeping law, were an unconstitutional attempt by Arizona to regulate immigration. Arizona is expected to immediately appeal the decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco."

Ahh yes civil rights win again!

[only4mikki 1]

On this Immigration topic:

I am an American who has lived in many countries, all of which have strict Immigration Laws. Everywhere i have ever lived, UK, Italy, Philippines, Kuwait and I have also visited many countries including Russia. If you are caught as an undocumented or with an expired visa of any sort you will be deported immediately, go home to your country where ever you came from. End of story. In most cases you will be fine and not allowed to return unless these are paid and they grant you permission in advance. Illegal is illegal.

You are actually helping illegal aliens by deporting them or having them become legal so that they can earn correct wages and be treated fairly by all government agencies and employers.

Illegal Immigrants are costing us natural American citizens and legal working Immigrants billions of our hard working tax dollars.

The down side of deporting all of these illegal immigrants, who will do all of these job, such as, fruit picking, agriculture, yard working, moving,house keeping (domestic), and all other jobs you are not willing to do even for a fair price. As stated earlier, being legal would require all of these immigrants to be paid and treated fairly which would now increase cost of all these goods and services. But i don't think deporting all illegals would ever decrease your taxes...

I have a problem with giving illegal immigrants anything, they need to be sent back to where ever they came from and charged for their ride home and learn the correct way to file all necessary paperwork and do things as stated by law. I also have a problem with illegal immigrants being given state ID cards and other social services, once they are found as illegal immigrants in any State in our great country they should be sent on their way home.

Illegal is illegal.

The only people making noise about all these Immigration Laws, old and new are either illegal themselves or have family members or friends that are here illegal or they are employers of these under paid mistreated illegal immigrants.

I can't wait to hear all of your great comments.

[only4mikki 1]

LOL , per this article

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-arizona-immigration-20100729,0,3606702.story

"U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Wednesday halted implementation of the parts of the law that require police to determine the status of people they stop and think are in the country illegally. She also forbade the state from charging anyone for a new crime of failing to possess immigration documents.

Bolton's ruling found that the Obama administration was likely to prevail at trial in proving the two provisions, and two other ones in the sweeping law, were an unconstitutional attempt by Arizona to regulate immigration. Arizona is expected to immediately appeal the decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco."

Ahh yes civil rights win again!

I am glad you are willing to pay for all of these Illegal Immigrants to be in our country. I am not.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am an American who has lived in many countries, all of which have strict Immigration Laws. Everywhere i have ever lived, UK, Italy, Philippines, Kuwait and I have also visited many countries including Russia. If you are caught as an undocumented or with an expired visa of any sort you will be deported immediately, go home to your country where ever you came from. End of story.

US Citizens are protected by our beloved U.S. Constitution from having to carry papers with us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in order to prove to local law enforcement that we are here legally should they ever question our legal status. So when a draconian law such as SB1070 tries to circumvent our constitutional rights by giving authority to local law enforcement to ask for papers from anyone they suspect (including U.S. Citizens) and then detaining them without bail, indefinitely until USCIS clears the suspect, those who love the U.S. Constitution will stand up and challenge such draconian measures.

This is a victory for our beloved Constitution. All Americans should be proud that our civil rights prevailed.

Edited July 28, 2010 by El Buscador

[TOM&Riz 4]

Don't count your chicken before they hatch, the area's in the bill that are being contested are only on hold ...

[Tahoma 2,291]

Tahoma you may want to ask your wife how many she was checked for, as for our experience my wife was checked for all of them.

I don't need to ask my wife what she was checked for at St. Lukes. I already know. She is a registered nurse and also knows precisely what she was checked for and what vaccinations she was given. It seems you are the one who does not know what St. Lukes checks for and what vaccinations are required. St. Lukes does not check for "all of them." But, please do come back after you've done your homework. This will get you started.

Me on the other hand was immunized against these diseases when i was a child as I suspect you were

Most US citizens were immunized when they were children or they couldn't enroll in kindergarten

Were you immunized for HIV? Oops, wait a minute, there is no vaccination for HIV. Were you vaccinated against hepatitis B? Odds are that you weren't. Were you immunized against herpes? Oops, another one with no vaccine. Using your own logic, you were not allowed to enroll in kindergarten.

You really are defensive in your replies, Tahoma, we all have different mindsets, that's what sets us apart, there is no need to slander or try to degrade anyone for having different opinions

This isn't about "mindsets." It's about facts and context. When you are wrong, why don't you simply admit it and quit whining about being slandered and degraded? Instead, you could use your time more productively by doing your homework.

My whole point is, why do I have to go through this lengthy expensive process to live with my wife and the guy up the street whom I have to help pay his medical bills and the costs to deport his relatives, it's quite obvious the federal government is failing at enforcing the laws of our country, this bill only is an attempt to enhance this process.

Since you are so concerned about your wallet, have you considered that it may be less expensive for you to pay for the" guy up the street" than it would be to find him and deport him over and over again? Or do you prefer to further erode the civil rights of American citizens?

[Tahoma 2,291]

By the way, your link, and the links in your link, did not give any evidence whatsoever that illegal aliens spreading communicable diseases is a "major issue" or is "yet another disaster."

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf

eta: link in case the paste above is truncated: link

bottom left of page 8, paragraph labeled 'contagious diseases"

link is to an edition of the journal of american physicians and surgeons, dated spring 2005

Nice try, Charles, but no cigar. There are not any "major issues" or "disasters" there. But I do appreciate it that you didn't link me to worldnutdaily.com.

[Tahoma 2,291]

Tahoma: "would you please provide your link that shows the United States Supreme Court ruling that allows profiling based only on race."

evli1966: "this one originally United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, then this one 24 years later limiting the first but not nullifying it(if that is the correct word) United States v. Montero-Camargo, in foot note 21 it states:"

21 In Brignoni-Ponce, the Supreme Court also noted that "[t]he Govern-

ment also points out that trained officers can recognize the characteristic

appearance of persons who live in Mexico, relying on such factors as the

mode of dress and haircut." 422 U.S. at 885. Those factors, however, havebeen largely ignored by lower courts, in favor of a broader reading of

Mexican or Hispanic appearance. In reaching our holding, we do not reject

the use of factors such as dress or haircut when they are relevant. Nor do

we preclude the use of racial or ethnic appearance as one factor relevant

to reasonable suspicion or probable cause when a particular suspect has

been identified as having a specific racial or ethnic appearance, be it Cau-

casian, African-American, Hispanic or other. We note, however, that a

stop based solely on the fact that the racial or ethnic appearance of an indi-

vidual matches the racial or ethnic description of a specific suspect would

not be justified. See United States v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286, 1289 (9th

Cir. 1982).

Thank you for proving my point!

[dluke77 9]

http://www.usconstitution.net

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#life

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/index.html

The links above are pretty good info and the second is fun facts about whats in the Constitution and whats not. The third link is the governments Constitional Website. Entities in our government have been arguing about whats what in the Constition since its inception.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

Nice try, Charles, but no cigar. There are not any "major issues" or "disasters" there. But I do appreciate it that you didn't link me to worldnutdaily.com.

well if you're gonna dismiss a respected publication like that, there's nothing more i can do for you.

[dluke77 9]

US Citizens are protected by our beloved U.S. Constitution from having to carry papers with us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in order to prove to local law enforcement that we are here legally should they ever question our legal status. So when a draconian law such as SB1070 tries to circumvent our constitutional rights by giving authority to local law enforcement to ask for papers from anyone they suspect (including U.S. Citizens) and then detaining them without bail, indefinitely until USCIS clears the suspect, those who love the U.S. Constitution will stand up and challenge such draconian measures.

This is a victory for our beloved Constitution. All Americans should be proud that our civil rights prevailed.

Where in the constitution does it protect us from having to carry papers. I see where it protects us from anyone searching our 'papers' without warrant or probably cause.

If I have a weapon of certain type in certain states -- I must have a permit -- no problem with that. It says I have the right to bear arms; it doesn't prevent the federal or state government from requiring a permit to carry that weapon. Some municipalities have no gun at all laws -- direct violation of the Constitution -- Obama tries not to fight those laws though.

Stand up for the whole thing and just don't lay down for the Articles and protection you like.

The government in the Constitution has the right to set laws and rules in regard to the 'naturalization' process--no where in the Constitution is governing 'immigration' guaranteed to the Federal Government. Thru history it has been considered an inherent right of the government to do so. One part of the design about the Constitution was its design to take 'inherent' rights of government away from a tryant or king giving the people their rights and detail what rights the people give back to their United States Government.

Best thing that could happen is for the federal government to recognize states rights to control immigration (since its not guaranteed to the government--FACT--in the Constitution) and if California wants to allow illegal immigrants in then let them if Arizona doesnt than let them make their own laws. Also, cut all federal funding for schools, colleges, and employers in states that allow illegal immigrants. My son can't get a Pell Grant and paid for his school but his friend received 100% federal Pell grant and is in fact here illegally... that is just sickening.

[evli1966 88]

Thank you for proving my point!

yes I showed the link to prove to you that until recently it was based on race. and that only because of the rise in population (most likely illegals) in areas brought a change.

it just showed you were ignorant of such laws and I was ignorant of the change; although the change does allow racial profiling. OMG you best start your protesting now.

but of course your reading comprehension is a C- vs a fail in US History.

but rest assured in the fact you probably get a B to an A in grammar and spelling.

The best part of this is the fact that the 18+ states that will pass legislation will make the wording more difficult for the feds to fight and in the end the US Citizens will be protected by the laws and the US Constituiton not the Illegal Immigrants flooding our country.

I am sure your gardner and pool boy are greatful for your support even though they make less than minimum wage.

Edited July 29, 2010 by evli1966

[evli1966 88]

Where in the constitution does it protect us from having to carry papers. I see where it protects us from anyone searching our 'papers' without warrant or probably cause.

If I have a weapon of certain type in certain states -- I must have a permit -- no problem with that. It says I have the right to bear arms; it doesn't prevent the federal or state government from requiring a permit to carry that weapon. Some municipalities have no gun at all laws -- direct violation of the Constitution -- Obama tries not to fight those laws though.

Stand up for the whole thing and just don't lay down for the Articles and protection you like.

The government in the Constitution has the right to set laws and rules in regard to the 'naturalization' process--no where in the Constitution is governing 'immigration' guaranteed to the Federal Government. Thru history it has been considered an inherent right of the government to do so. One part of the design about the Constitution was its design to take 'inherent' rights of government away from a tryant or king giving the people their rights and detail what rights the people give back to their United States Government.

Best thing that could happen is for the federal government to recognize states rights to control immigration (since its not guaranteed to the government--FACT--in the Constitution) and if California wants to allow illegal immigrants in then let them if Arizona doesnt than let them make their own laws. Also, cut all federal funding for schools, colleges, and employers in states that allow illegal immigrants. My son can't get a Pell Grant and paid for his school but his friend received 100% federal Pell grant and is in fact here illegally... that is just sickening.

Sorry steve I agree here; to many people pick and choose which what articles to believe in and toss the rest aside. The only win here was for the ILLEGALs in this country to remain illegal and drain our coffers and tax doallrs that every recent study shows happening. also remember that niether you, me or most lkely anyone else here could afford to house and care for any of those illegal families.

I am saying it now watch the flodd of immigrants in AZ from the border and for that any other states I will bet the number of illegals rise to 24+ million in the next 1 to 2 years. all because you were afriad to show ID.

[Tahoma 2,291]

well if you're gonna dismiss a respected publication like that, there's nothing more i can do for you.

You skirted the point. There simply was nothing in there that rose anywhere near the level of "a disaster."

~ Tahoma

Your.avoidance.is.duly.noted.

[Tahoma 2,291]

yes I showed the link to prove to you that until recently it was based on race. and that only because of the rise in population (most likely illegals) in areas brought a change.

it just showed you were ignorant of such laws and I was ignorant of the change; although the change does allow racial profiling. OMG you best start your protesting now.

but of course your reading comprehension is a C- vs a fail in US History.

What a bunch of rubbish. You obviously make this stuff up as you go along. Neither of the cases you cited allows profiling based only on race. You either forgot the question, or you are trying to avoid it, or you simply don't understand it. Which is it? For your benefit, I'll state it again:

"would you please provide your link that shows the United States Supreme Court ruling that allows profiling based only on race."

Reading comprehension = F.

but rest assured in the fact you probably get a B to an A in grammar and spelling.

Sloppy grammar and spelling = a sloppy mind. And don't forget syntax and sentence structure either.

The best part of this is the fact that the 18+ states that will pass legislation will make the wording more difficult for the feds to fight and in the end the US Citizens will be protected by the laws and the US Constituiton not the Illegal Immigrants flooding our country.

Of course, no matter which way it's worded, SCOTUS will strike down SB1070 and all the other wannabees as unconstitutional...as they deserve. SB1070 does virtually nothing to stop illegal immigration. All it does is create a police state that steps on the rights of American citizens, and it encourages racial profiling. The get-the-government-off-my-back types need to stand against this law and show America that they are not hypocrites.

I am sure your gardner and pool boy are greatful for your support even though they make less than minimum wage.

I'll defer to your expertise on minimum wage.