The Illegal Immigration Thread

[psycobetabuckdown]

As long as you admit the blog and the document shown prove nothing about Obama not letting people assemble. That's not a right he has taken away from anyone so you were wrong in your statement by using it as an example of rights obama has taken away.

I said has taken away or is in the process of taking away. Intimidating an assembly via turning guns on them is not different from hindering their right to assemble.

edit: Tom, political threads are no place for tl;dr's

[faxman75]

I said has taken away or is in the process of taking away. Intimidating an assembly via turning guns on them is not different from hindering their right to assemble.

You're still wrong. The military has never turned a gun on anyone at a tea party. It hasn't happened. It's not in the process of happening. It never will happen unless something turns violent and out of control.

[TomAz]

edit: Tom, political threads are no place for tl;dr's

The article is about the militia closely affiliated with the Tea Party.

Sorry it was so long, I thought you liked to be kept informed.

[psycobetabuckdown]

The article is about the militia closely affiliated with the Tea Party.

Sorry it was so long, I thought you liked to be kept informed.

Just joking. A fringe group is not evidence of widespread terrorist activity requiring special training though.

[amyzzz]

I don't want to read anymore about these stupid right wing splinter groups. Just blow up something already or leave me the fuck alone.

[psycobetabuckdown]

I don't want to read anymore about these stupid right wing splinter groups. Just blow up something already or leave me the fuck alone.

Agreed.

[faxman75]

I actually read more of that blog you sourced. Wow was that ridiculous. You should really read what you are posting. Do you really believe the United States Government under the direction of Obama was going to plan a sneak attack and violently dismantle the tea party groups without provocation?

What's wrong with you lol seriously?

[TomAz]

Just joking. A fringe group is not evidence of widespread terrorist activity requiring special training though.

This "fringe group" is quite tied to the Teabaggers.

Oath Keepers collaborates regularly with like-minded citizens groups; last Fourth of July, Rhodes dispatched speakers to administer the oath at more than 30 Tea Party rallies across America.

[shoegazer76]

Its a very easy excuse for someone caught "muling" to use. They're caught coming in with a kilo or pound of tar & guess what excuse they use. The big time cartels are not using people to run small amounts like this. They're objective is to get bigger hauls across. Think about it. What good would it do them to they kill an entire town for such small amounts mules can carry across? It would serve none. The people are worth more to them as prospective mules so it would not benefit them to kill these people. I feel really bad for the mules that are being forced into doing this. However there are many other mules who are chomping at the bit to run as much as they can. If anybody knows anything about opiate addiciton you know about the severe physical dependency these fools have. Many addicts would like to quit if they could but simply cannot afford or have the access do so.

[shoegazer76]

[J~$$$$]

weak.

[faxman75]

Its a very easy excuse for someone caught "muling" to use. They're caught coming in with a kilo or pound of tar & guess what excuse they use. The big time cartels are not using people to run small amounts like this. They're objective is to get bigger hauls across. Think about it. They're going to kill an entire town because a kilo didn't make it through?
Those links are not in anyway related to the heroin trade. Your talking about thugs who don't have a pot to piss in so they're resorting to the lowest tactic they know of to make money.

The links were to represent the violence the cartels are capable of. You obviously didn't read the other link at all which was an article about a mule in texas who is now going to school here. He talks about how the mules in the area he is in are actually middle class teens. Not those who don't have a "pot to piss in".

The reason for our argument is because you think the Mexican cartels make empty threats against the families of mules but you're not showing any evidence to back up your defense and it's needed because the cartels are amongst the most violent and dangerous criminals we have seen.

[psycobetabuckdown]

This "fringe group" is quite tied to the Teabaggers.

Ok Tom I've finished one of the three pages in the article and I think I have an idea of who the Oath Keepers are. What part of this article suggests to you that they are violent? Vowing to protect the Constitution in event of government tyranny and illegal orders is a noble act. All military officers take an oath to do so.

[faxman75]

I don't want to read anymore about these stupid right wing splinter groups. Just blow up something already or leave me the fuck alone.

At least they haven't blown up something in this case yet. I know some left wing splinter groups who blew up stuff though.

My point is there are crazy violent splinter groups on both sides. We just happen to have a democratic president right now so we are hearing more about them right now.

Dems are plenty good at voilent protests though and they have done them throughout history and arguabley more violent but that's another discussion for another day. The fact is both sides have shown violence.

[shoegazer76]

O.k. yeah the Texas link had much to do with the smuggling route. That was undoubtedly more of a tactic for them to gain control of the route on the Mexican side & get the civilians out so they could set up shop rather than to acquire money. I absolutely don't think cartels make empty threats. Its easy to say its a cartel when many of them are organized street gangs (the same as here in the states). I'm saying it is easy to dismiss all of the mules/smugglers as people that have been forced into this situation when many are not. I was one of the first to even bring up violence along the border in this thread. If a cartel(s) threatens an American town then military action is undoubtedly called for. Cartels are not going to risk confontations with U.S. special ops. Those threats are only that empty threats. The day they actually try to fuck with an entire U.S. town is the day they will have their asses handed to them.

[faxman75]

I'm saying it is easy to dismiss all of the mules/smugglers as people that have been forced into this situation when many are not.

So somewhere we had miscommunication. I agree, many are not forced into the situation but who knows how many are or aren't?

I don't care about drug users and drug dealers and I certainly don't think they should be executed. As far as kids getting a hold of heroin that's someone elses responsibility and probably depends case by case how they got addicted. The mexicans can bring all the drugs into the country they want for all I care.

This leads me to my next question. If marijuana becomes legal in the state of Arizona, does that have a big impact on any of this border violence?

[mountmccabe]

It's also worth noting a drivers license will not be sufficiant in proving citzenship.

False.

SB 1070 (read the House Engrossed Version as that is the one what actually went into law) says

A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating idenficiation license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

To be fair an out of state driver license may not be sufficient...

Requiring people to carry around their immigration documents at all times is fucking ridiculous.

It's federal law that they need to carry around some sort of immigration ID. This new AZ law isn't more stringent that that... and, in fact, is less stringent than that.

"tell you what all 35 stars fans in AZ, organize a protest concert! we'll be there..."

stars are either very modest or very ignorant.

They are funny is the answer.

[shoegazer76]

That would soley depend on the state's policy about importing it. There would be a clause in the law somewhere I would imagine. If it were for medical use I would think probably not because of quality standards. For recreational purposes though I think the state would allow importing. I really don't think it would have an impact on the border violence. The violence is pretty much a result of bigger money at stake involved with cocaine, heroin, & methamphetamine. I'm sure it would alleviate some of the violence but probably nothing noticeable. It would be a great victory for all if it did have a significant impact on border violence though.

[mountmccabe]

For the record I am certainly no fan of SB1070... but our arguments against it should be based in reality.

What I want to know is what "lawful contact" is supposed to/going to mean.

From SB1070h

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.

Oh, shit. Now I'm seeing reports that that language was modified by another bill [EDIT: which, it should be noted, is not (yet) signed into law]

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

[shoegazer76]

Undoubtedly I am bitter about the drug smuggling topic for all the friends I've lost & all the once good people I knew who became theiving, lying zombie bastards as a result of all the cheap smack hitting the streets. My execution comment came from this bitterness & sadness. I don't wish anybody dead.

[faxman75]

False.

SB 1070 (read the House Engrossed Version as that is the one what actually went into law) says

Interesting yet that wasn't enough a few days ago when ICE detained a natural born american citizen until his wife showed up with their birth certificates. That happened here in Arizona. The guys drivers license was an Airzona license. Either way there is a ton of misinformation out there and I see loads of people saying a DL will not be sufficiant but they are obviously misinformed. Thank you for the link to the House Engrossed Version.

[mountmccabe]

So wait.

Now SB 1070 just means that if someone is detained and/or arrested and/or guilty of something else... then their immigration status can be/has to be (different in different situations, I think) checked. And the accused can prove their immigration status as easily as with an Arizona driver license.

What is the issue now?

I was concerned that "lawful contact" was going to be taken broadly (it is lawful for a police officer to wander down the street and see people, it is lawful for a police officer to stop and offer assistance with a flat tire, etc) and I was concerned that the requirements for proving citizenship would be stringent... that folks would start needing to carry around passports or someshit... and it turns out both of these are false (or at least will be made false if HB 2162 goes into effect.)

So, wtf?

[mountmccabe]

Interesting yet that wasn't enough a few days ago when ICE detained a natural born american citizen until his wife showed up with their birth certificates. That happened here in Arizona. The guys drivers license was an Airzona license. Either way there is a ton of misinformation out there and I see loads of people saying a DL will not be sufficiant but they are obviously misinformed. Thank you for the link to the House Engrossed Version.

Not sure of the details but ICE is the Federal Government.

SB1070 will apply to AZ officers, etc.

[faxman75]

Not sure of the details but ICE is the Federal Government.

SB1070 will apply to AZ officers, etc.

Yes i'm aware ICE is federal.

[faxman75]

So wait.

Now SB 1070 just means that if someone is detained and/or arrested and/or guilty of something else... then their immigration status can be/has to be (different in different situations, I think) checked. And the accused can prove their immigration status as easily as with an Arizona driver license.

What is the issue now?

I was concerned that "lawful contact" was going to be taken broadly (it is lawful for a police officer to wander down the street and see people, it is lawful for a police officer to stop and offer assistance with a flat tire, etc) and I was concerned that the requirements for proving citizenship would be stringent... that folks would start needing to carry around passports or someshit... and it turns out both of these are false.

So, wtf?

There are other issues. Those who don't have drivers licenses for one. It's not against the law to not have a drivers license. Those who are children and don't carry around their birth certificates. The issue is "reasonable suspicion" and what the government and law enforcement deems "reasonable suspicion" to initiate the contact to begin with.

The governor herself spent a lot of time explaininig that training would be done in advance to make sure profiling doesn't take place but we do not know what that entails and given what cops pull over and profile for already, it's hard to blindly trust her.

[dorkfish]

http://stereogum.com/358701/op-ed-by...nchises/op-ed/

I’m sure most of you know by now that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer recently signed SB 1070 into law. This law is purported to be a way of addressing what is a perceived to be a lacking in enforcement of immigration laws but it is felt by many — myself included — to be a massively flawed piece of legislation that is, at its core, out and out racism. In a very small nutshell: It requires all “immigrants” to carry their proof of citizenship with them at all times and police officers are required to demand that anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant to produce said proof, among other things (Example: Punishing anyone that helps out an “illegal.” A more complete picture can be found here.)

This thing you are reading, however, is not specifically about the law in question. I have made a major assumption when writing this: That you, the reader, already know about what is going on and think this is a travesty, that you do not buy the insane correlations being made between illegal immigration and drug violence, you think that this is one of the darkest moments in recent history, etc. If I have, however, assumed wrong then please stop reading now — and I am sorry you feel that way. I think that the problems with a law like this should be clear to everyone and thankfully I’m not alone in thinking this, as many people have stood up in solidarity with Arizonans that are opposed to this bill. Many are suggesting different strategies of addressing what is going on. One suggested strategy is boycotting Arizona. Some bands have also gotten on board and stated that they will not play the state until the law is repealed.

Before I go any further, I want to say that this is in no way meant as an attack on the bands that have chosen to boycott Arizona as a reaction to this bill. I think they have their reasons for choosing this tactic to try a force the repealing of this law. That said, I think this strategy is severely flawed. First, I think it makes assumptions about the people that like your band. It presupposes not only that the people like your band are incapable of coming to the reasonable idea about this bill, but that they are in favor of this bill. The fact is, this was a ugly divisive issue across the state and that there are a huge number of people in Arizona that were bitterly opposed to the legislation and are now disgusted that it has been made law.

I think instead of boycotting Arizona, bands should make a point of going there now more then ever. They should use whatever profile they have to address the issues around this law by talking about it in the local press. Bands should also engage the people at the show to get involved. This doesn’t necessarily require lecturing the people at the shows (They are, after all, living in the eye of the storm and are no doubt inundated with it all the time. The last thing they need is an outsider coming in and telling them about it). There are organizations throughout Arizona that have been working for years on the behalf of immigrants both “legal” and “illegal.” I’m sure any number of these organization would love the chance to set up a table, hand out literature and encouraging and empowering people to get involved. I think that by supporting and encouraging these people, the opportunity for producing change is far greater than with any sort of music embargo.

Boycotts certainly have a place in activism, but I feel they are only effective in certain situations. I just don’t think that this is one of those situations. There is such a huge number of people that are opposed to this law within Arizona that by trying to force a change through a boycott, the side effect is punishing these people. These people need support now more then ever. They probably feel marginalized enough as is. One of the worst possible outcomes of a boycott is inadvertently disenfranchising the people that you are siding with. I am not saying that this will happen, but at the same time I think it is important to show these people that they are in no way alone. Once again, I want to reiterate, in no way am I attacking those that have chosen to boycott. I think it is more important that groups of people have been moved to action by what they have see as an injustice. Hopefully one of these strategies will prove effective and this law will be overturned.

[mountmccabe]

There are other issues. Those who don't have drivers licenses for one. It's not against the law to not have a drivers license. Those who are children and don't carry around their birth certificates. The issue is "reasonable suspicion" and what the government and law enforcement deems "reasonable suspicion" to initiate the contact to begin with.

The governor herself spent a lot of time explaininig that training would be done in advance to make sure profiling doesn't take place but we do not know what that entails and given what cops pull over and profile for already, it's hard to blindly trust her.

No, it is not against the law to not have a driver license. The state offers a non-operators license to folks that choose not to drive but want a state-issued ID.

And you're worried about children being detained/arrested for other illegal activity and then them not having ID on them to show they are citizens? I can't say that has me very concerned. The lack of an ID on you doesn't close the issue/trigger deportation.

[HandBanana]

I have changed my Avatar in protest

[canexplain]

I think TomAz and I actually agree on something. Something important even. ...

[faxman75]

And you're worried about children being detained/arrested for other illegal activity and then them not having ID on them to show they are citizens? I can't say that has me very concerned. The lack of an ID on you doesn't close the issue/trigger deportation.

It has me concerned. So does the text here.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

What text are you reading that shows they have to commit a crime before an investigation take place? Unless you equate reasonable suspicion with actual crime.