Who is coming across the border

[idrathernot]

Although I haven't read the new Arizona Immigration Law (hey I could be a Senator!), I can easily understand the concern of Mexican Americans that giving additional authority to law enforcement will inevitably result in abuses thereof. Once you give up a little bit of liberty it is often decades, if ever, that you regain it. (New and Improved PATRIOT Act has no sunset provisions under PresBO)

Question: Do ranchers along the border in Arizona enjoy the same protections of castle doctrine that we do?

I've never really heard of a rancher killing aliens, but I have heard of illegals suing a rancher for holding them at gunpoint.

[redlin67]

Only in the United States of America do illegals have more rights that citizens do.

[AEA]

It makes me sick that the Government and cry baby activist groups put the "rights" of a person committing a crime above the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE the crime is against.

What does it take to get them to WAKE UP and realize that illegal immigrants HAVE NO RIGHTS, human, civil or otherwise!

No wonder they continue to stream across the border. They know the woosh'es in the US will not stop them or do anything serious to them because of perceived rights.

My idea is to station APC's with .50 cal machine guns on the border and shoot to kill. This eliminates all the "rights" arguments and will absolutely stem the flow of illegals into this Country.

[Kythas]

Although I haven't read the new Arizona Immigration Law (hey I could be a Senator!), I can easily understand the concern of Mexican Americans that giving additional authority to law enforcement will inevitably result in abuses thereof. Once you give up a little bit of liberty it is often decades, if ever, that you regain it. (New and Improved PATRIOT Act has no sunset provisions under PresBO)

Question: Do ranchers along the border in Arizona enjoy the same protections of castle doctrine that we do?

I've never really heard of a rancher killing aliens, but I have heard of illegals suing a rancher for holding them at gunpoint.

Since you haven't read it (I have, it's only 11 pages) I'll give you a quick summary.

1. The bill only creates one new crime - it makes it a state misdemeanor offense to physically be in the State of Arizona if you are in the United States illegally.
2. It requires law enforcement to verify immigration or citizenship status of all persons arrested before they can be released from arrest (via bail or otherwise). Note this is ALL persons, not just brown people.
3. It allows local law enforcement to question you regarding your immigration status but ONLY if they are already in contact with you regarding another law enforcement matter. (So, no, they can't stop and harass you for getting ice cream unless you stole that ice cream)
4. It allows local law enforcement to NOT question you regarding your immigration status if they have reason to believe you're here illegally, at their discretion, if they believe questioning you on that matter will hinder their investigation of another crime.
5. Regarding the requirement that all legal aliens carry their green card with them at all times - that's already a Federal requirement. Nothing new there.
6. On Page 1 of the law, it outlines which documentation is sufficient to prove legal status. One of these documents is any State issued driver's license. Since we all have to carry our license with us when we drive, I see nothing new there, either.

For the people who say local law enforcement should not question people regarding immigration status, since immigration violations are a Federal matter, I say this: should local law enforcement not question people regarding bank robbery since bank robbery is a Federal matter? I see local police arresting bank robbers all the time. I don't see why immigration law should be any different.

[davidtx]

Although I haven't read the new Arizona Immigration Law (hey I could be a Senator!), I can easily understand the concern of Mexican Americans that giving additional authority to law enforcement will inevitably result in abuses thereof. Once you give up a little bit of liberty it is often decades, if ever, that you regain it. (New and Improved PATRIOT Act has no sunset provisions under PresBO)

Question: Do ranchers along the border in Arizona enjoy the same protections of castle doctrine that we do?

I've never really heard of a rancher killing aliens, but I have heard of illegals suing a rancher for holding them at gunpoint.

Since you haven't read it (I have, it's only 11 pages) I'll give you a quick summary.

1. The bill only creates one new crime - it makes it a state misdemeanor offense to physically be in the State of Arizona if you are in the United States illegally.
2. It requires law enforcement to verify immigration or citizenship status of all persons arrested before they can be released from arrest (via bail or otherwise). Note this is ALL persons, not just brown people.
3. It allows local law enforcement to question you regarding your immigration status but ONLY if they are already in contact with you regarding another law enforcement matter. (So, no, they can't stop and harass you for getting ice cream unless you stole that ice cream)
4. It allows local law enforcement to NOT question you regarding your immigration status if they have reason to believe you're here illegally, at their discretion, if they believe questioning you on that matter will hinder their investigation of another crime.
5. Regarding the requirement that all legal aliens carry their green card with them at all times - that's already a Federal requirement. Nothing new there.
6. On Page 1 of the law, it outlines which documentation is sufficient to prove legal status. One of these documents is any State issued driver's license. Since we all have to carry our license with us when we drive, I see nothing new there, either.

For the people who say local law enforcement should not question people regarding immigration status, since immigration violations are a Federal matter, I say this: should local law enforcement not question people regarding bank robbery since bank robbery is a Federal matter? I see local police arresting bank robbers all the time. I don't see why immigration law should be any different.

Thanks for the excellent summary

[idrathernot]

Thanks Kythas!

Had I heard from ANY news outlet that the bill does NOT provide a new avenue for LEOs to establish probable cause, I would have been much more supportive from the onset. I'm off to read it myself now that I know it's only 11 pages, but from your summary the law basically just closes loopholes (and forces the legal system to actually enforce its own existing laws ) that liberals have been exploiting for decades to pad 'dem polls.

[bdickens]

Now what did you go and do that for, Kythas?

[Kythas]

Thanks Kythas!

Had I heard from ANY news outlet that the bill does NOT provide a new avenue for LEOs to establish probable cause, I would have been much more supportive from the onset.

Actually, the talking heads on Fox News have made that distinction clear every time someone on their show has made the accusation that this will allow harassment. Note that none of the opponents of the bill actually come out and SAY this bill allows racial profiling - they only plant that seed by insinuation.

In fact, the amendment to the law specifically prohibits racial profiling.

For those of you without great skills in Google-Fu, here is a link to the bill. It's apparently 17 pages in this format. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

[cbr600]

deleted

[duns]

It's easy to react to reports of people entering illegally across the TX border by demanding a 1,952-mile long fence along the entire border. Easy to react that way if someone else is paying for it. Those who make decisions about national security need to consider all the security threats, all the potential mitigating measures against each threat, and the costs and benefits of every potential mitigating measure. In other words, rational decision-making requires a huge, integrated, risk analysis. The border crossings are just one threat and the fence is just one possible mitigating measure. Comprehensive analysis is needed to ensure that resources are focused where they are most needed. I am sure that to some extent that analysis has been done and that is why we don't see government rushing to build the fence.

When weighing the costs and benefits of security measures, I think we need to make a distinction between economic migrants and terrorists. The former come in large numbers but are relatively harmless. The latter are potentially deadly but come in very small numbers.

Is the cost of the fence justified to keep out economic migrants? Many people would argue that we need those migrants and we should be letting them in not shutting them out.

I would not expect a fence to be effective against terrorists. If they have clean records, they will just fly in as visitors. If they are on a watch list, they might sneak in over the Rio Grande at the present time. Build the fence and those terrorists will probably just charter a small plane to fly them in over the fence or take a boat around the coast. It would be a waste of money to build a fence impregnable to terrorists if they can just go around it or over it.

[baldeagle]

The curent administration just wants to get along with everybody including the OTM's. While some of 'em may be relatives, they are all future voters. You reckon that has anything to do with it?

The previous administrations didn't do such a hot job of stopping these illegals either. One party wants their votes and the other party wants their cheap labor.

I still say fire 'em all (in Washington) and let's over!

[idrathernot]

I agree that building a fence is definitely not the most sound approach. I am pleased with the measures already in place such as motion detectors, underground sensors, etc, etc. We just need about 100x more manpower and resources to be allotted. Furthermore, I don't care if they're just "economic migrants", they can still respect ours laws and enter the country legally.

[wheelgun1958]

[quote="duns"The former come in large numbers but are relatively harmless.[/quote]

Except for the fact that they are bankrupting our hospitals and schools. Except for the fact that they are taking entry level jobs from American citizens and LEGAL aliens. I could go on.

[baldeagle]

When weighing the costs and benefits of security measures, I think we need to make a distinction between economic migrants and terrorists. The former come in large numbers but are relatively harmless. The latter are potentially deadly but come in very small numbers.

I would gladly take all of the money that we presently spend on healthcare, welfare benefits, social security benefits and education for illegal immigrants and spend it on border enforcement instead. And I would be highly in favor of severe penalties for any business that hires illegal immigrants - severe enough to make it economically unsound to hire them.

I would welcome with open arms (as we always have) anyone who comes to America legally and stays here legally and obeys our laws.

You claim that economic migrants are "relatively harmless". The fact is they are very harmful. They erode respect for the law and encourage lawbreaking. Crossing the border illegally leads to an underground business in forged documents, to exploitation of these "harmless" migrants because they dare not involve law enforcement, to more crime (because they won't report it in fear of being caught and deported) and to the segregation of our population into ethnic communities that do not assimilate to our culture. All those things are far more damaging to our nation than any supposed benefit they provide to our economy.