Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

[rickh]

I am thinking they limit the packs to 75 lbs or less.... something to do with getting caught, the charges are less or something.

Between Yuma and Casa Grande it is about 150 miles.... between these 2 cities are probly the most traffic coming in. Drive along I-8 between Dateland and Casa Grande at dusk and you will see them running across the desert, headed north for the freeway. I even had a few dozen cross in front of me at nite while on my bike... my headlite hit them and it was like deer in front of me. I think it will peek soon, with all this attention coming from the law kicking in next month.

[stayouttadabunker]

My question is: why are they coming here?
I hear it's really nice down in Alcupulco?

[rickh]

several theories.... freebies abound within the States.... also, ones with pregnant wifes get a huge free ticket if they pop the kid out here. Lots of work from those that ignore thier status and give them slave wages.... and the drug trade is still heavy up here, so many are doing that.

There is also a faction building up thier population for the even where they will take back the southwest.... too many guns in our hands here in AZ, but most other SW states are ripe for the picking.

[rickh]

My question is: why are they coming here?

Quick really really simple answer.... ANYWHERE ELSE WOULD SHOOT THEM!

[rickh]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/OXs8gRI70oo&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/OXs8gRI70oo&rel=0</a>

[delma]

The meeting went well  until the Arizona governor demanded to see Obama's birth certificate.

Hee, hee.

[delma]

Immigrants from around the country are taking to the streets this week demanding that they be allowed to stay in the US in order to maintain their jobs. And what better way to maintain those jobs than by parading in the streets in the middle of the afternoon on a Wednesday.

[delma]

A US Border Patrol Agent catches an illegal alien in the bushes right by the border fence, he pulls him out and says "Sorry, you know the law, you've got to go back across the border right now." The mexican man pleads with them, "No, noooo Senior, I must stay in de USA! Pleeeze!" The Border Patrol Agent thinks to himself, I'm going to make it hard for him and says "Ok, I'll let you stay if you can use 3 english words in a sentence" The Mexican man of course agrees. The Border Patrol Agent tells him, "The 3 words are: Green, Pink and Yellow. Now use them in 1 sentence." The Mexican man thinks really hard for about 2 minutes, then says, "Hmmm, Ok. The phone, it went Green, Green, Green, I Pink it up and sez Yellow?"

[Ron (r273)]

This has been floating around U-tube. A Obama supporter?

 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/RMK9zxb5HyE&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/RMK9zxb5HyE&rel=0</a>

Ron (r273)

[Thor777]

OMG !  

I refuse to beleive that ANYBODY is THAT stupid !  

We are in real trouble ! 

[uniman]

This editorial article was in a local paper. Not sure how correct the facts are.


Published June 2, 2010

People, both here and abroad, are upsetting themselves over the recent anti-illegal alien laws, voted in by Arizona's citizens and signed into law by Arizona's Governor. In light of the following regulations, their position demonstrates the typical double standard used by the race-baiters and assorted frauds, ne'er-do-wells, y fulano-de-tales.

Here's a partial list of some immigration rules and laws that you might or might not enjoy:

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

2. All ballots will be in this nation's language ONLY.

3. All government business will be conducted in our language ONLY.

4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they live here.

5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.

6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor other government assistance programs. Anyone who is a burden will be deported.

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be in an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

8. If foreigners come here and buy land, options will be restricted. Certain parcels, including waterfront property, are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

9. Foreigners may have no protests. No demonstrations. No waving of any foreign flag. No political organizing. No bad mouthing our President or his policies, as these will lead to deportation.

10. If you do come into this country illegally , you will be actively hunted. When you are caught, you will be sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be removed from you and not returned.

So perhaps you say some of these are just too strict?

The above listed regulations are a portion of the current immigration laws of MEXICO! They sound fine to me.

Now how can I get this brought before Congress?

 
 

ot sure how correct the facts are.

[rickh]

It sounds close, if not correct....

[rickh]

I just got some calls about tying in and doing the printing of some items for some of the national anti-illegals groups.... so I printed this and am sending it off to see what comes of it.

[Joeylc]

ACLU issues travel warnings to Arizona

 

PHOENIX – The nation's top civil liberties group on Wednesday issued travel alerts for Arizona, saying the state's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants could lead to racial profiling and warrantless arrests.

American Civil Liberties Union affiliates in Arizona, New Mexico and 26 other states put out the warnings in advance of the Fourth of July weekend. The Arizona chapter has received reports that law enforcement officers are already targeting some people even though the law doesn't take effect until July 29, its executive director said.

The alerts are designed to teach people about their rights if police stop and question them.

The Arizona law requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.


 


Attorneys defending the law against constitutional challenges filed by the ACLU and others argue that the Legislature amended it to strengthen restrictions against using race as the basis for questioning by police. Five lawsuits are pending in federal court, and the U.S. Justice Department is believed to be preparing a legal challenge.

Despite the legislative action, the ACLU still believes that officers will inappropriately target minorities.

"We have a long history of racial profiling in this state, and this is basically going to really exacerbate that problem," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona.

The ACLU's warnings were accompanied by a "bust card" that citizens or non-citizens can print out or download to their mobile phone instructing them about their rights during encounters with police. 

[rickh]

typical dumbasses

[tacman]

So in an effort to make it look like I'm not "racially" profiling in a state that borders Mexico and has a high percentage of hispanic illegal immigrants, I will have to stop and question an equal number of blond, blue eyed caucasians about their status in the state.  When are we just going to get rid of the lawyers, they're the cause of just about every problem we have! 

 Dan (tacman)

[rickh]

Amnesty will be passed soon, so it may not be an issue soon.... no telling what will happen after that.

[rickh]

from a friend in AZ, Kelly Townsend (running for House Rep), about todays first hearing on SB1070

Hello gang,

Here is the update about today.
... See More
We went there quite early, with only the law enforcement present. Our group began arriving, and giving interviews to the media, representing the many voices who couldn't be there because they are working. The opposition showed up much later, and in small number.

Chris Rossiter and myself were able to go inside and watch the proceedings. We were intrigued by the arguments posed, and realized that it will be difficult to guess which way this judge will rule, regarding the injunction. She made it very clear that she was hearing both sides, who both had strong arguments, and then would review it. Rumor has it she will make the decision within the next day or so.

Here are the sections of the law that are being challenged, and it is our understanding that the injunction would apply only to them, not the entire bill. Or only to the sections she decides, perhaps only one of these.

ARS11-1050 (in its entirety)

ARS 13-1509

ARS 13-2319

ARS 13-2929

ARS 13-3883 (Subsection 5 only)

It was clarified that the injunction was against SB1070, as amended by HB2162, not the original SB1070.

It was also determined that this is against Jan Brewer acting in her official capacity, not her as an individual.

There were many previous rulings cited, which we will list here and you can research them at your leisure.

IRA-IRA (13 years ago) which was cited a few times but we don't have any other info on that.

Heinz v. Devinowitz (spelling could be off) but this one was cited frequently and eluded to it being most important.

Cobar vs. Nevarrez (again, spelling cold be off)

North Lake Tahoe case (not sure if that is linked to any of the above, but seemed significant when dealing with supremacy).

The main argument was that there is a conflict of unreasonable detention (release if not prudent to detain - at the officer's descretion) vs. indefinite mandatory detention until imigration status is determined. One part of section B states that they should be detained only when reasonable, and then a little bit later it says the "SHALL" be detained until their citizenship status is determined, which could then extend outside of the "reasonable" realm, potentially making it unconstitutional. The Governor's defense agreed it was worded poorly but that it rarely takes very long to establish citizenship.

This along with the argument that law enforcement officers are being asked to enforce a so-called potentially unconstitutional law and by upholding their oath to not accept an unconstitutional order, they may be disciplined and/or lose their job. They are asking for the injunction until it is determined whether or not the law is indeed unconstitutional. Liken it to if they were told to seize the citizen's handguns. An officer could rightfully refuse to follow that order/law and risk losing his job, and is asking that until the lawsuit is complete and a judgement is made about the Constitutionality of the law, there be an injunction so he is not required to enforce it. Here we have an officer who believes he is being asked to enforce an unconstitutional law. The judge remarked that it was a matter of opinion until the outcome of the lawsuit.

It seemed the judge questioned the validity of most of the arguments, except she did seem to agree that we cannot indefinitely detain someone until their immigration status is determined, according to the Constitution which states we cannot detain someone for an "unreasonable" amount of time. The question is, what is reasonable and how long does it really take to determine a person's citizenship?

The attorney Montoya is a formidable player in this and is not to be underestimated. We could very well see an injunction in this, however it won't be on the entire SB1070, but likely on the wording of indefinite detention until status is determined.

As a side note, the other protestors there, I am told, were threatening our people, however there was no real actual trouble to speak of (other than heat stroke!)

There is a lot of indepth stuff that happened there today, but we wanted to give you the overall briefing.

We were comended, by the way, for our professional approach to the situation, and thanked for calling ahead yesterday and asking what was requied of us, and letting them know we were coming. We do want to thank all our law enforcement, who were there in force, from even as far away as Los Angeles, to make sure everyone was safe. It was considered a "dry run" for next week, when the hearing will begin on July 22 (not the 20th).

Thank you all who participated in person and in spirit. See you next Thursday!

Kelly Townsend

Visit Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots at: http://phoenixteaparty.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

[brichter]

So, the sticking point about defining an "unreasonable amount of time" is already codified. A person must either be arraigned or released within 72 hours of their detention/arrest. Does the judge somehow feel that existing law isn't good enough?