The AZ illegals just got screwed

Taichiliberal said:
Now if you instituted the new Arizona law in Manhattan, you'd have cops bringing Times Square to a stand still! Wild stuff!
Click to expand...

And now, the Truth:
* The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well.
* The law avoids the legal pitfall of “pre-emption,” which means a state can’t adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem.
* The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.
* Estimates from the federal government indicate that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Latin America.
* Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:
o A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver's license or other form of federal or state identification.
o A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
o A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.
* The law specifically states that police, “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070.
Click to expand...
http://www.redcounty.com/reasoned-facts-about-new-arizona-immigration-law/39293
 
Yurt said:
i agree, it is a burden on the system, they should simply be deported. why do they deserve "greater" protections though? greater than what? your rights, my rights?
Click to expand...

Of course not.

The court demands greater protection of a person accused of a crime than one accused of a civil infraction. This has developed because a person accused of a crime is at greater risk in the loss of liberty. It is honestly unbelievable to me that you people don't know this. What rock have you been living under for the past couple thousand years?

If you get accused of a traffic violation the court does not require that you be provided a lawyer and the burden of proof is far lower. If the cop says you ran a red light, you ran a red light. The state's word does not suffice to such a degree in a criminal trial. Of course, as has been mentioned illegal presence is not hard to prove. But there is no reason to afford them the rights of the criminally accused if we are simply going to deport them.
 
Yurt said:
i agree, it is a burden on the system, they should simply be deported. why do they deserve "greater" protections though? greater than what? your rights, my rights?
Click to expand...

Deporting them doesn't do any good, Yurt. They come right back. We must have more control of our border.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Deporting them doesn't do any good, Yurt. They come right back. We must have more control of our border.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, deporting them does do some good. It makes future entry more difficult and many if not most never come back. Those that come back can/are treated as criminals, though we often just deport them again. Deporting them is cheaper than providing them room and board in prison.

Just deporting them over and over is not the answer. But, with first time offenders, doing anything more than deporting them would be stupid and create a tremendous burden on the state.
 
RStringfield said:
You are wrong, deporting them does do some good. It makes future entry more difficult and many if not most never come back. Those that come back can/are treated as criminals, though we often just deport them again. Deporting them is cheaper than providing them room and board in prison.

Just deporting them over and over is not the answer. But, with first time offenders, doing anything more than deporting them would be stupid and create a tremendous burden on the state.
Click to expand...

citation-needed-wikipedia-819731_500_271.jpg
 
You seriously are demanding that I prove that not all people deported return? The claim that they do is so extraordinary that it not only puts the burden of proof on those claiming such a fantastical notion, but it requires extraordinary proof of you.

If you are asking me to prove that it makes it harder to come back... Deportation orders almost always carry a 3-10 year bar on reentry. It does not make it impossible but harder.
 
RStringfield said:
And would receive the legal rights of those accused of a crime. You still have to verify their legal right to be here. What is streamlined?



That does not have to be checked now. If you are illegally present you can be deported whether you entered legally or not.



All you got is duh, dumfuck. You don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. Those prosecuted for illegal entry create a burden on the system as they must be afforded greater protections. It is necessary in order to punish the habitual offender. Throwing all those here illegally in jail would create a huge strain on resources. It's better just to deport them which we can do without a criminal proceeding. If they do it again then we go to the trouble of trying and jailing them.

The policy is what it is not in the interest of being soft on illegal immigrants, as you retards seem to think. It is setup this to ease the burden on the state.

Again, Rudy explained what a disaster such a policy would be. But, he knows the topic, unlike the toothless idiot Republicans that post here.
Click to expand...

You don't have to verify shit doofus dork if everyone without legal paperwork is treated the same! As to costs, leaving illegal persons in our country costs much more than the typical 7-60 days it takes to deport them!
 
RStringfield said:
You seriously are demanding that I prove that not all people deported return? The claim that they do is so extraordinary that it not only puts the burden of proof on those claiming such a fantastical notion, but it requires extraordinary proof of you.

If you are asking me to prove that it makes it harder to come back... Deportation orders almost always carry a 3-10 year bar on reentry. It does not make it impossible but harder.
Click to expand...

think about what you're suggesting.

People who ignored our laws will follow our laws if we catch them and release them back to their contry. They will never try that again.


I'm sorry, but the fact thet they tried to get there to begin with gives me good reason to believe they'll attempt to get here again. They knew it was illegal the first time they tried.


Your arguments are weak.
 
RStringfield said:
You seriously are demanding that I prove that not all people deported return? The claim that they do is so extraordinary that it not only puts the burden of proof on those claiming such a fantastical notion, but it requires extraordinary proof of you.

If you are asking me to prove that it makes it harder to come back... Deportation orders almost always carry a 3-10 year bar on reentry. It does not make it impossible but harder.
Click to expand...

lol....sorry folks, you have to turn around.....you've been banned from reentry for 3-10 years....
illegal-aliens-20090118-bip.jpg
 
RStringfield said:
Of course not.

The court demands greater protection of a person accused of a crime than one accused of a civil infraction. This has developed because a person accused of a crime is at greater risk in the loss of liberty. It is honestly unbelievable to me that you people don't know this. What rock have you been living under for the past couple thousand years?

If you get accused of a traffic violation the court does not require that you be provided a lawyer and the burden of proof is far lower. If the cop says you ran a red light, you ran a red light. The state's word does not suffice to such a degree in a criminal trial. Of course, as has been mentioned illegal presence is not hard to prove. But there is no reason to afford them the rights of the criminally accused if we are simply going to deport them.
Click to expand...

The explain why I've received 7 traffic violations, in my entire life and have won 5 of them.
The best one was getting a ticket for my bike being to loud (I was running open pipes) and I had the case dismissed (and yes the Officer showed up).
 
RStringfield said:
You seriously are demanding that I prove that not all people deported return? The claim that they do is so extraordinary that it not only puts the burden of proof on those claiming such a fantastical notion, but it requires extraordinary proof of you.

If you are asking me to prove that it makes it harder to come back... Deportation orders almost always carry a 3-10 year bar on reentry. It does not make it impossible but harder.
Click to expand...

Not if they self-deport and that's where a lot of them just keep returning.
There was a recent case where if I remmeber correctly a young girl was kidnapped, raped, and then murdered.
The person that did this had been caught 7 times and had returned 7 times.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....sorry folks, you have to turn around.....you've been banned from reentry for 3-10 years....
Click to expand...

Uh yeah. Not everyone in this country illegally entered illegally. A very large number of illegals entered through proper channels then over stayed. This is a fact. Those deported cannot reenter through legal channels. It does not make their entry impossible, as I clearly noted, just harder. They can still enter illegally, as noted.

Do some research and quit making a show of your ignorance.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Not if they self-deport and that's where a lot of them just keep returning.
There was a recent case where if I remmeber correctly a young girl was kidnapped, raped, and then murdered.
The person that did this had been caught 7 times and had returned 7 times.
Click to expand...

Your anecdote is not verifiable and therefore of no value.

A deportation order bars future entry for 10 years whether the person leaves or the feds round him up and ship him out. 8 U.S.C. 1182.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
The explain why I've received 7 traffic violations, in my entire life and have won 5 of them.
The best one was getting a ticket for my bike being to loud (I was running open pipes) and I had the case dismissed (and yes the Officer showed up).
Click to expand...


Sure, you can fight them.

Are you unfrozen caveman lawyer? You apparently don't know the first thing about our legal system.

Charging someone with a crime requires a higher burden of proof as well as more rights being afforded to the accused. This is basic shit, and you can argue against it all you like, but it is a fact and has long been one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top