Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SB 1070 thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SB 1070 thread

    Most Americans support Arizona immigration law

    A new Washington Post/ABC poll finds that 58 percent of Americans support Arizona's tough new immigration law. Support is strongest among Republicans and independents, and least strong among Democrats, especially minority Democrats.

    Still, the support is qualified in some respects. Even as a majority of Americans back the measure — which gives law enforcement officers authority to check the immigration status of people they have stopped or arrested — 57 percent of Americans also favor giving illegal immigrants who are already in the country a chance to become legal, if they pay fines and meet other requirements. Almost half of Republicans polled also support the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

    In another result that rubs against the logic of the Arizona law, just 46 percent of respondents agree that states should be able to make their own border policies.

    The poll also shows that many Americans do not approve of how President Obama is handling border issues. Fifty-one percent of respondents overall gave him negative ratings — with 56 percent of independents disapproving of his handling of immigration. Obama announced last month that he would send 1,200 National Guard members to the border to help train Border Patrol officers.

    The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

    — Liz Goodwin is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/...s_ynews/ynews_ts2661

  • #2
    Most Americans support Arizona immigration law

    A new Washington Post/ABC poll finds that 58 percent of Americans support Arizona's tough new immigration law. Support is strongest among Republicans and independents, and least strong among Democrats, especially minority Democrats.

    Still, the support is qualified in some respects. Even as a majority of Americans back the measure — which gives law enforcement officers authority to check the immigration status of people they have stopped or arrested — 57 percent of Americans also favor giving illegal immigrants who are already in the country a chance to become legal, if they pay fines and meet other requirements. Almost half of Republicans polled also support the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

    In another result that rubs against the logic of the Arizona law, just 46 percent of respondents agree that states should be able to make their own border policies.

    The poll also shows that many Americans do not approve of how President Obama is handling border issues. Fifty-one percent of respondents overall gave him negative ratings — with 56 percent of independents disapproving of his handling of immigration. Obama announced last month that he would send 1,200 National Guard members to the border to help train Border Patrol officers.

    The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

    — Liz Goodwin is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/...s_ynews/ynews_ts2661

    Comment


    • #3
      This just means that the majority support for SB 1070 should not be viewed plainly as a 'support' for it. But rather it's heavy with the connotation of general discontent with the status quo and with the federal government's inaction.

      Comment


      • #4
        All random surveys seem to have the same contradicting results, that's why. So the figures point to that without even venturing a guess.

        Comment


        • #5
          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The poll also shows that many Americans do not approve of how President Obama is handling border issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          It hasn't changed since he took office.

          Comment


          • #6
            I GLADLY SIGNED THE PETITION IN THE STATE I LIVE IN AND SO DID MY NEIGHBORS. THIS PETITION IS LIKE THE ONE IN ARIZONA. For Someone12: LOVE YOUR OPINIONS!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Hillary Clinton: U.S. Will Sue Over Arizona Immigration Law


              Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the federal government will sue Arizona, challenging the state's tough new immigration law, which gives police power to stop and question anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.

              Clinton told an Ecuadorean television station earlier this month that the Justice Department, at President Obama's direction, "will be bringing a lawsuit." But she did not say on what grounds the U.S. would do so, and the Justice Department declined to confirm that such a case was going forward. But on Friday, a senior Obama administration official told CBS News a federal challenge to the law would be filed when the Justice Department finishes building a case.

              Clinton's remarks came as no surprise and another government source told the Washington Post "there is no reason to think" that her statement is incorrect. The Obama administration has indicated for weeks that a lawsuit is likely and the president himself has been highly critical of the law, which caused a storm of protest from immigrants-rights groups and various threats to boycott the state of Arizona. The American public, however, is divided on the law. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found 48 percent wanted a similar statute in their state, while 35 percent opposed such action.

              A video of Clinton's June 8 interview was distributed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been calling for a federal lawsuit, the Post said. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said she was "stunned and angered" to hear of Clinton's remarks, CNN reported. If the federal government intends to sue, Brewer said, "the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation."



              source

              Comment


              • #8
                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 4now:
                Hillary Clinton: U.S. Will Sue Over Arizona Immigration Law


                Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the federal government will sue Arizona, challenging the state's tough new immigration law, which gives police power to stop and question anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.

                Clinton told an Ecuadorean television station earlier this month that the Justice Department, at President Obama's direction, "will be bringing a lawsuit." But she did not say on what grounds the U.S. would do so, and the Justice Department declined to confirm that such a case was going forward. But on Friday, a senior Obama administration official told CBS News a federal challenge to the law would be filed when the Justice Department finishes building a case.

                Clinton's remarks came as no surprise and another government source told the Washington Post "there is no reason to think" that her statement is incorrect. The Obama administration has indicated for weeks that a lawsuit is likely and the president himself has been highly critical of the law, which caused a storm of protest from immigrants-rights groups and various threats to boycott the state of Arizona. The American public, however, is divided on the law. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found 48 percent wanted a similar statute in their state, while 35 percent opposed such action.

                A video of Clinton's June 8 interview was distributed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been calling for a federal lawsuit, the Post said. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said she was "stunned and angered" to hear of Clinton's remarks, CNN reported. If the federal government intends to sue, Brewer said, "the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation."



                source </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                She just climbed up a notch on my ladder.

                Comment


                • #9
                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Still, the support is qualified in some respects. Even as a majority of Americans back the measure — which gives law enforcement officers authority to [b]check the immigration status of people they have stopped or <span class="ev_code_RED">arrested</span>p/b] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


                  Why would anybody be against law enforcement checking immigration status of someone that was arrested? Would you be against law enforcement running a background check for warrants, driving license offenses, previous arrests too... all of which are mentioned are standard procedure?

                  Seriously, I am trying to understand the positions taken against these measures.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There's nothing wrong in law enforcement being able to check the immigration status of a person if arrested. That already happens under the current Federal law and local authorities can do so by agreement with the DHS.

                    The problem with SB 1070 is that it opens the door for potential abuse using profiling in order to stop and ask about immigration status of a person 4now. How does a cop determine on sight with no other clues as to who is illegal by "reasonable suspicion" alone? Who will they ask? A white person who speaks english or a brown person who doesn't speak much english? That is what I object to.
                    "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brit4064:
                      There's nothing wrong in law enforcement being able to check the immigration status of a person if arrested. That already happens under the current Federal law and local authorities can do so by agreement with the DHS.

                      The problem with SB 1070 is that it opens the door for potential abuse using profiling in order to stop and ask about immigration status of a person 4now. How does a cop determine on sight with no other clues as to who is illegal by "reasonable suspicion" alone? Who will they ask? A white person who speaks english or a brown person who doesn't speak much english? That is what I object to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brit4064:
                        There's nothing wrong in law enforcement being able to check the immigration status of a person if arrested. That already happens under the current Federal law and local authorities can do so by agreement with the DHS.

                        <span class="ev_code_RED">So this is not a problem ... correct?</span>

                        The problem with SB 1070 is that it opens the door for potential abuse using profiling in order to stop and ask about immigration status of a person 4now.


                        <span class="ev_code_RED">How so? Do police make up or lie about reasons to stop people, just to be able to get secondary info ? Yes they have been doing that forever to justify writing a secondary stop ticket. This is so not anything new, and I dont see any of you blathering off about what goes on day in and out in every local township.

                        </span>

                        How does a cop determine on sight with no other clues as to who is illegal by "reasonable suspicion" alone? Who will they ask? A white person who speaks english or a brown person who doesn't speak much english? That is what I object to.


                        <span class="ev_code_red">How does law enforcement any other time use reasonable suspicion? In general it is because they have reasonable suspicion. It is by a person's actions. traffic stop, arrest, disorderly conduct, suspicious actions, etc.</span>
                        </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                        </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


                        Have either of you even read the bill? It is hard for me to fathom anyone that has read the bill to come to the concerns that you are expressing to kill this bill.

                        Do you want the bill killed or do you have some provisions that you would like to see added that you feel would make the bill more palatable to you?


                        So my question is this: Do we want immigration laws or not? Do we want them enforced or not. If the answer is "yes" to both questions, then perhaps we need to give law enforcement officials more tools to do their job, instead of continually doing everything we can to make sure they can't enforce the laws.



                        Bottom line question : Do we need to enforce our immigration laws, or just get rid of them, or just convieniently ignore them for who we want them to apply to (private bills, etc)

                        I am sincerly open to serious diaglogue on this, not emotional argument, however feel free to express it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          for those who have not read.....

                          The Actual Bill itself is here :


                          http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/4...2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf



                          ARIZONA STATE SENATE
                          Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session


                          FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1070

                          immigration; law enforcement; safe neighborhoods

                          <span class="ev_code_RED">Full fact sheet @</span>
                          http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/4...y/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

                          followin is excerpt:

                          Purpose
                          Requires officials and agencies of the state and political subdivisions to fully comply with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and gives county attorneys subpoena power in certain investigations of employers. Establishes crimes involving trespassing by illegal aliens, stopping to hire or soliciting work under specified circumstances, and transporting, harboring or concealing unlawful aliens, and their respective penalties.


                          Background
                          Federal law provides that any alien who 1) enters or attempts to enter the U.S. at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, 2) eludes examination by immigration officers, or 3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the U.S. by a willfully false or misleading representation is guilty of improper entry by an alien. For the first commission of the offense, the person is fined, imprisoned up to six months, or both, and for a subsequent offense, is fined, imprisoned up to 2 years, or both (8 U.S.C. § 1325).
                          The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the primary authority for enforcing immigration laws. ICE was created in March 2003 as an investigative branch of the Department of Homeland Security. ICE was the result of combining the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service.
                          Current statute defines criminal trespass in the first degree as a person knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in areas related to residential structures, residential yards, real property subject to a valid mineral claim or lease under certain circumstances, property if the person defaces religious symbols or religious property, or critical public service facilities. Depending on the circumstances, criminal trespass in the first degree provides penalties ranging from a class 1 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony (A.R.S. § 13-1504).



                          For general reading, this is an excerpt from from wikipedia about SB 1070. wikipedia



                          The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law,[21] and obligates police to make an attempt, when practicable during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official",[22] to determine a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.[23] Police may arrest a person if there is probable cause that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents,[21] and an arrested person cannot be released without confirmation of legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code. A first offense carries a fine of up to $100, plus court costs, and up to 20 days in jail; subsequent offenses can result in up to 30 days in jail[24] (SB 1070 required a minimum fine of $500 for a first violation, and for a second violation a minimum $1,000 fine and a maximum jail sentence of 6 months).[25]

                          A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.[23]

                          The law also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting "the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law" and provides that Arizona citizens can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement.[23][19] A private citizen who prevails in such a lawsuit may be entitled to reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees and court costs.[23]

                          In addition, the law makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which "blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." Vehicles used in such manner are subject to mandatory impounding. Moreover, "encourag[ing] or induc[ing]" illegal immigration, giving shelter to illegal immigrants, and transporting or attempting to transport an illegal alien, either knowingly or while "recklessly" disregarding the individual's immigration-status,[25] will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if fewer than ten illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if ten or more are involved. The offender will be subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each illegal alien so transported or sheltered.[25]



                          [edit] Arizona HB 2162


                          <span class="ev_code_blue">On April 30, the Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed, House Bill 2162, which modified the law that had been signed a week earlier, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin."[26] The new text also states that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest", lowers the original fine from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $100, and changes incarceration limits from 6 months to 20 days for first-time offenders.[22]</span>

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I see that all of the drama queens (Brit, etc) are still wringing their hands over SB1070...while the people of Arizona are counting down the days until the law takes actual effect (July 29, 2010).

                            I can tell you that those in America legally have NOTHING to be concerned about with regard to SB1070...regardless of their ethnicity or national origin, or even whether they can speak English or not (although if a person lives in America, then one must reasonably ask why they can't speak English, but that's yet another issue).

                            In any event, upon presentation of a valid driver license or ID card from a state that requires legal presence (including Arizona), all suspicion regarding legal presence ENDS...immediately!

                            What is it about the arrogance of illegals and their apologists that they feel that they have a right not be to be confronted by law enforcement (as the representatives of the American people)?

                            Furthermore, I know many hispanic Americans and legal hispanic immigrants who are in FULL support of SB1070; this is NOT a racial issue, and those, like Brit, who assert that it is should be ashamed of themselves.

                            Of course, Brit might be excused his excesses because his country of origin has a stellar reputation when it comes to how they deal with racial issues...doesn't it? YEAH, RIGHT!!! (ROFLMAO)

                            Only the other day, I watched on the TV as British residents of differing complexions came to blows in the streets, as the police tried to intervene.

                            And, of course, no British person would EVER countenance something similar to SB1070 for their country! No, their remedy is to vote in large numbers for extreme right-wing parties like the National Front and the British National Party.

                            Perhaps that is why Brit decided to immigrate?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 4now:
                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brit4064:
                              There's nothing wrong in law enforcement being able to check the immigration status of a person if arrested. That already happens under the current Federal law and local authorities can do so by agreement with the DHS.

                              <span class="ev_code_RED">So this is not a problem ... correct?</span>

                              The problem with SB 1070 is that it opens the door for potential abuse using profiling in order to stop and ask about immigration status of a person 4now.


                              <span class="ev_code_RED">How so? Do police make up or lie about reasons to stop people, just to be able to get secondary info ? Yes they have been doing that forever to justify writing a secondary stop ticket. This is so not anything new, and I dont see any of you blathering off about what goes on day in and out in every local township.

                              </span>

                              How does a cop determine on sight with no other clues as to who is illegal by "reasonable suspicion" alone? Who will they ask? A white person who speaks english or a brown person who doesn't speak much english? That is what I object to.


                              <span class="ev_code_red">How does law enforcement any other time use reasonable suspicion? In general it is because they have reasonable suspicion. It is by a person's actions. traffic stop, arrest, disorderly conduct, suspicious actions, etc.</span>
                              </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


                              Have either of you even read the bill? It is hard for me to fathom anyone that has read the bill to come to the concerns that you are expressing to kill this bill.

                              Do you want the bill killed or do you have some provisions that you would like to see added that you feel would make the bill more palatable to you?


                              So my question is this: Do we want immigration laws or not? Do we want them enforced or not. If the answer is "yes" to both questions, then perhaps we need to give law enforcement officials more tools to do their job, instead of continually doing everything we can to make sure they can't enforce the laws.



                              Bottom line question : Do we need to enforce our immigration laws, or just get rid of them, or just convieniently ignore them for who we want them to apply to (private bills, etc)

                              I am sincerly open to serious diaglogue on this, not emotional argument, however feel free to express it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              Yes, we need immigration laws. The problem is that the federal government is not enforcing them. So, the various states and localities are taking matters into their own hands without a thought given to constitutional rights. Let's work on securing our borders rather than chasing down illegals after they snuck in.

                              Those of us who don't have brown skin or look foreign in any way have no clue what it's like to be harassed because of our appearance. I would hope the politicians could see it from this point of view. They will engage in racial profiling despite their denial. And that's just wrong.

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X