Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CONGRATULATIONS MS. JAN BREWER

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

  • Aroha
    replied
    Yes, it would be better to have national action, but again, the federal government is woefully inadequate at enforcing immigration law. There are too many special interest groups pulling the strings.

    Most other states have come out and said that they wouldn't enact the same law, even the ones that have either applauded it or said they understood the reasons. I don't see this becoming national state-wide action, but I think the Government need to take a good look at AZ's concerns and act accordingly to prevent even one other state following suit.

    You're right. It won't stop illegal immigration. But it will make it harder for people, at least in AZ, and may make them think twice about their actions. What would be the benchmark for success? I'm pretty sure AZ would tell you that even a small reduction in the numbers of illegal entries would be it.

    And to do with who getting re-elected? And so what if it is? Everybody does what they can for that. ****, even Obama's already got his eye on his second term and is appealing to Blacks, Latinos and women to keep him in the Oval Office. Is that wrong too?

    Leave a comment:


  • Brit4064
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You're right. It is a Federal matter but Federal enforcement is severely lacking and border crime is on the increase. What do you do if the government won't take care of the problem? That's the part of AZ's reasoning I understand. The government regularly pays lip service to increased enforcement measures but have yet to deliver everything they promise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    One State acting won't stop illegal immigration. For it to be effective, all 50 States must act so rather than each State making their own laws, it's better to have a National action ie. Federal action.

    I still say this is more to do with getting re-elected that solving the problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aroha
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brit4064:
    He has to take a stand against it or else some of the other right-leaning States will formulate their own law. All this will do is push the problem elsewhere. Which is how it should be as Immigration is a Federal matter, not a State matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You're right. It is a Federal matter but Federal enforcement is severely lacking and border crime is on the increase. What do you do if the government won't take care of the problem? That's the part of AZ's reasoning I understand. The government regularly pays lip service to increased enforcement measures but have yet to deliver everything they promise.

    As for Obama, he has taken a stand. The question is whether or not he will do more than talk about how misguided he thinks it is and actually force AZ to repeal it, given the support the law has nationwide or whether he'll just sit back and let the ACLU and immigrant groups deal with it through lawsuits etc etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    "Held:

    The factory surveys did not result in the seizure of the entire work forces, and the individual questioning of the respondent employees by INS agents concerning their citizenship did not amount to a detention or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 215-221.

    (a) Interrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure. Unless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded, such questioning does not result in a detention under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 216-217.
    (b) The entire work forces of the factories were not seized for the duration of the surveys here, even though INS agents were placed near [466 U.S. 210, 211] the exits of the factory sites. The record indicates that the agents' conduct consisted simply of questioning employees and arresting those they had probable cause to believe were unlawfully present in the factory. This conduct should not have given respondents, or any other citizens or aliens lawfully present in the factories, any reason to believe that they would be detained if they gave truthful answers to the questions put to them or if they simply refused to answer. If mere questioning did not constitute a seizure when it occurred inside the factory, it was no more a seizure when it occurred at the exits. Pp. 217-219.
    (c) Since there was no seizure of the work forces by virtue of the method of conducting the surveys, the issue of individual questioning could be presented only if one of the respondent employees had in fact been seized or detained, but their deposition testimony showed that none were. They may only litigate what happened to them, and their description of the encounters with the INS agents showed that the encounters were classic consensual encounters rather than Fourth Amendment seizures."INS v. Delgado: Mere questioning is not a seizure under the 4th Amendment.

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    And by the way the police do not need even reasonable suspicion to question someone about their immigration status.

    "Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status."
    Muehler v. Mena

    Leave a comment:


  • Brit4064
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Like it or not, the thing is law and like it or not, it has the support of not only the majority of people in AZ, but of people nationwide. I'm fairly certain you can't get much more serious than that, and it also brings in to question (at least for me) how likely it is that Obama will take the direct offensive against AZ over it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    He has to take a stand against it or else some of the other right-leaning States will formulate their own law. All this will do is push the problem elsewhere. Which is how it should be as Immigration is a Federal matter, not a State matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aroha
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brit4064:
    But passing laws which are unconstitutional is not the way to go about it. If you think about it for a minute, they are complaining about illegal activities yet pass a Bill which is very likely illegal too! How can you take them seriously? Just because many people appear to like the law doesn't make it good law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Brit, popular and good are not mutually exclusive. Something doesn't have to be one to be the other.

    I've already said I'm not a supporter. I think it's misguided and has the potential to do more harm than good. However I do understand a good chunk of the reasoning behind it and find some of the claims by those against it to be a tad on the ludicrous side. But, how can I take them seriously? That's an easy one, my dear. I can take it seriously because it IS. Like it or not, the thing is law and like it or not, it has the support of not only the majority of people in AZ, but of people nationwide. I'm fairly certain you can't get much more serious than that, and it also brings in to question (at least for me) how likely it is that Obama will take the direct offensive against AZ over it.

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    Not Fox News, Rasmussen. Read and weep s.uckas!

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    Well, even the Ninth Circuit has upheld Arizona's illegal employment law, so the chances of this law being declared unconstitutional are very small.

    In any event just claiming something you don't like is unconstitutional is not an argument. And I don't believe for a minute that you are concerned at all about illegal immigration.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brit4064
    replied
    But passing laws which are unconstitutional is not the way to go about it. If you think about it for a minute, they are complaining about illegal activities yet pass a Bill which is very likely illegal too! How can you take them seriously? Just because many people appear to like the law doesn't make it good law.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aroha
    replied
    According to Gallup, the numbers lean in favour nationwide.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/127...immigration-law.aspx

    But then, Obama once said Gallup were a tad on the dodgy side and if he says it, it must be true! LOL. Personally, I'm not surprised by the poll results as the numbers against immigration reform et al are traditionally higher than the numbers for. In AZ's case, the fact that Arpaio keeps being elected despite the controversy, law suits and condemnation says a lot about the feelings in that state.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brit4064
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
    I still don't believe it. They probably narrowed their poll to include mostly those who would be in support of this measure. I'm sure they didn't take a fair sample. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    If it's from Fox Noise then it must be true

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    And Mrs. Mani, the law says that if you are detained by the police as part of a stop (Terry v. Ohio) you can be questioned as to your immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion you are an illegal alien. In any event, the USBP and ICE can stop you and question you as to your alienage as well. So what you are so suddenly concerned about has been the law and practice for many years. This does not even include interior inspection stations where the USBP and ICE stop everyone and question them as to their citizenship and immigration status.

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    Denial ain't a river in Egypt.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    I still don't believe it. They probably narrowed their poll to include mostly those who would be in support of this measure. I'm sure they didn't take a fair sample.

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X