Arizona's SB 1070: Sheriff Joe Arpaio debates Kyrsten Sinema

Arizona's SB 1070: Sheriff Joe Arpaio debates Kyrsten Sinema
CNN's American Morning with Kiran Chetry and John Roberts (April 21, 2010). Joe Arpaio and Kyrsten Sinema talk about SB1070.


ROBERTS: Latino members of Congress are calling on Arizona's governor to kill a state bill targeting immigration.

The law would make it a crime to be in the country illegally, require police to question anyone if there is a reason to suspect they're in the U.S. illegally. It would prohibit slowing or blocking traffic when searching for day laborers, make it a crime to give ride to someone that you know is an illegal immigrant, and it would fine towns and cities that don't enforce immigration laws.

It already passed Arizona's Senate and House, but governor Pat Brewer has not said if she's going to sign it or not, though there is some indication she may.

Here to talk more about this is Sheriff Joe Arpaio who supports the bill, and Arizona State Representative Kyrsten Sinema, who voted against it. Folks thanks so much for being with us this morning.

Representative Sinema, let's start with you. Some people have said this bill constitutes racial profiling. What do you say?

KYRSTEN SINEMA, ARIZONA STATE HOUSE: Well, one of the real difficult things about this bill is that it forces law enforcement into a catch-22. They have to engage in asking the status of anyone they come into contact with that they have reasonable suspicion to believe may be undocumented.

And if they fail to do so, any Arizona citizen can sue them for not enforcing all federal immigration laws. So they're really placed in a tough bind. They either will get sued for racial profiling by asking folks who are citizens to prove their documentation, or they'll get sued by citizens for not asking every person who appears to be of Latino descent to provide documentation.

ROBERTS: Sheriff Arpaio, this bill doesn't seem too far off from what you have been doing. This is a matter of common practice. What do you think of the bill? SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA: It gives us an extra tool, gives law enforcement the initiative to enforce the federal immigration laws and the new state laws. So I'm all for it.

We've arrested and detained 38,000 illegal aliens, and not much problem. I have a few complaints. The U.S. Justice Department a year and a half ago initiated a civil rights investigation against me. Nothing has happened. So we're doing the right thing.

ROBERTS: Now Cardinal Roger Mahoney of the Los Angeles archdiocese, sheriff, said that this bill would encourage, quote, "German-Nazi and Russian-communist techniques." What do you say to that?

ARPAIO: Well, I do know that the demonstrators call me Hitler. They have signs. They've call me every name in the book. That's sad, right here in phoenix. But that's ridiculous. Law enforcement are trained. They're professionals. They know how to enforce the laws. So I'm very comfortable with the new law.

ROBERTS: Representative Sinema, you heard the sheriff saying it gives them another tool to enforce the law. What's your point of view on that? Should law enforcement have every tool legally at their disposal to deal with this issue?

SINEMA: Well, absolutely. Law enforcement should have every tool that they need to do their job.

The problem is that this law doesn't provide those tools. What law enforcement really need are the resources and the tools to crack down on criminal syndicates at our border. We've seen an increase in drug running, gun running, and people running all over the border regions. And there are pieces of legislation that we can pass to actually help that problem.

I just passed a bill that was signed by the governor last week to help crack down on sex trafficking, which is a huge problem in our border. Those are the kinds of tools we need to offer to police officers.

Unfortunately, this bill really puts them in a tough bind and actually ties their hands, makes it more difficult for them to do their job appropriately.

ROBERTS: Sheriff Arpaio, what do you say to that?

ARPAIO: This is garbage. I was a director in Mexico City with the U.S. drug enforcement, spent 14 years at the border. Everybody talks about the border. That's a cop-out, because no one wants to talk about enforcing illegal immigration laws in the interior because of politics, they want amnesty. So it's always secure the border.

But we have criminals right here in Maricopa County, in our jails. We have over 50 people charged with murder that are illegals, violence and everything else. So we have to hit this problem on all levels. The border, yes, but how about inside the United States too? ROBERTS: Representative Sinema, what do you say about that? Sealing the border is one thing, but there are millions of people who are already here who are undocumented immigrants?

SINEMA: Well, I think that's a really important point. And one of the things that, you know, we have offered is that folks like Sheriff Joe should consider enforcing some of the tools and using some of the skills they already have. For instance, here in Maricopa County, there are over 40,000 unserved warrants by violent felons.

ARPAIO: Oh, my gosh.

SINEMA: And we would prefer that Sheriff Joe spend his time issuing those warrants and tracking down those felons rather than finding opportunities to arrest janitors in the city of Mesa.

ARPAIO: Oh, you know, we do crime suppression. We get warrants and drugs and everything else when we're out there.

That's the old cop-out that you've been saying, and your open border people. And I'm not even responsible for the 40,000 warrants. But that's all you can say.

They're calling me a racist and you demonstrating with the demonstrators, Sharpton coming down here. Everybody demonstrated against me because I'm doing my job and I will continue to do my job. And I'll tell you one thing. When this new law is passed, I will continue to enforce that law also.

ROBERTS: Well, Sheriff Arpaio let me ask you this question, because many people have raised this, that it now becomes law that if you are a documented immigrant you need to carry that documentation with you or even, you know, if you're a citizen, you've got to have proof that you're a legal resident of this country.

If you come across someone who you suspect may be illegal simply because maybe they're Hispanic and they don't have documentation but they are either a legal immigrant or they're an American citizen, what do you do with them?

ARPAIO: Well, what we've been doing with them. We either arrest them pursuant to our law enforcement on other types of crimes or we have trained -- I did have 100 deputies trained by Homeland Security. Of course they took away that authority. But I have 900 deputies trained.

So we know how to enforce. We know the protocol. We know the criteria when we come across people that may be here illegally in the country.

ROBERTS: But can you say all law enforcement will be that adept at enforcing and applying this law?

ARPAIO: Well, they're trained all the time on all types of laws. I hope they will be trained. I hope there are no incidents from higher-ups to keep them from enforcing the new law. ROBERTS: And Representative Sinema, obviously it looks like there will be legal challenges against this bill. Some members of Congress insist federal law trumps state law, so that may be one of the first challenges. Do you expect this law if the governor signs it into law, do you expect that it will survive the legal challenges?

SINEMA: Well, I anticipate that this law will not survive the legal challenges. I'm also a constitutional attorney, and there are a number of constitutional flaws and problems with this law, one of which you just mentioned, which is the issue of requiring documentation by individuals who may or may not have status in this country.

There are a number of people who have legal status in this country who have no documentation, are not offered any by the government to prove that. An example would be the wife of a work visa holder. She's allowed to be here in this country, but she has no paper to prove that. And just two weeks ago in the city of Mesa, a tourist from Mexico was detained for two hours when officers were unable to recognize his tourist visa for the legal document that it was. And unfortunately, that represents an unconstitutional loss of liberty for that individual.

So I think we'll see significant challenges, and I do not anticipate that this law will survive those challenges.

ROBERTS: All right, Representative Sinema and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, thanks for joining us this morning.

SINEMA: My pleasure.
ARPAIO: Thank you.
ROBERTS: Good discussion, appreciate it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... tm.03.html

Watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/arpaionews# ... LAD6R2XtiU

Gotta love Sheriff Joe

I adore Sheriff Joe. And if Kyrsten is a constitutional law attorney, then no wonder our country has gone to Constitutional Hell in a Handbasket. She couldn't even recite the provisions of the law correctly.

:roll:

She denounces this bill because she claims it is unconstitutional for an alien to be required to carry their papers with them. What a joke! U.S. Citizens are required to carry proof of identity at all times, proof of registration and insurance when they are driving. Yet an illegal alien shouldn't have to follow the same rules?

If she was a Constitutional Lawyer as she claims, then she would know that this new Arizona law is almost identical to numerous Federal statutes which are already on the books, including 8 USC 1304(e), and 8 USC 1324.

Furthermore, she would also know that almost all of the provisions within this law are already crimes under Federal law. For example, it is already a crime to hire illegals. Transporting illegals is also a crime already on the books. I have highlighted the pertinent parts in red:

Sec. 264. [8 U.S.C. 1304]

(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/ ... -8289.html

1907 Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) Offenses
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

Alien Smuggling -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing that a person is an alien, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien.

Domestic Transporting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.

Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

Bringing Aliens to the United States -- Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).

Unit of Prosecution -- With regard to offenses defined in subsections 1324(a)(1)(A)(i)-(v), (alien smuggling, domestic transporting, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or conspiracy/aiding or abetting) each alien with respect to whom a violation occurs constitutes a unit of prosecution. Prior to enactment of the IIRIRA, the unit of prosecution for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) was each transaction, regardless of the number of aliens involved. However, the unit of prosecution is now based on each alien in respect to whom a violation occurs.

Knowledge -- Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew that the person brought to the United States was an alien. With regard to the other violations in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), proof of knowledge or reckless disregard of alienage is sufficient.

Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i) or (B)(ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_ ... m01907.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICEstorm

She denounces this bill because she claims it is unconstitutional for an alien to be required to carry their papers with them. What a joke! U.S. Citizens are required to carry proof of identity at all times, proof of registration and insurance when they are driving. Yet an illegal alien shouldn't have to follow the same rules?

If she was a Constitutional Lawyer as she claims, then she would know that this new Arizona law is almost identical to numerous Federal statutes which are already on the books, including 8 USC 1304(e), and 8 USC 1324.

Furthermore, she would also know that almost all of the provisions within this law are already crimes under Federal law. For example, it is already a crime to hire illegals. Transporting illegals is also a crime already on the books. I have highlighted the pertinent parts in red:

Sec. 264. [8 U.S.C. 1304]

(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/ ... -8289.html

1907 Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) Offenses
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

Alien Smuggling -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing that a person is an alien, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien.

Domestic Transporting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.

Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

Bringing Aliens to the United States -- Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).

Unit of Prosecution -- With regard to offenses defined in subsections 1324(a)(1)(A)(i)-(v), (alien smuggling, domestic transporting, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or conspiracy/aiding or abetting) each alien with respect to whom a violation occurs constitutes a unit of prosecution. Prior to enactment of the IIRIRA, the unit of prosecution for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) was each transaction, regardless of the number of aliens involved. However, the unit of prosecution is now based on each alien in respect to whom a violation occurs.

Knowledge -- Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew that the person brought to the United States was an alien. With regard to the other violations in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), proof of knowledge or reckless disregard of alienage is sufficient.

Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i) or (B)(ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_ ... m01907.htm

---

Exactly! And don't forget this important section of 1324a:

4. c.

Quote:

---

(c) Authority to arrest

No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

---

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc ... -000-.html

It's already constitutional federal the law that state and local police officers can arrest illegal aliens. Someone should revoke her constitutional law degree for lying about "the law" and the US Constitution. Can we do that?

Just kidding, but seriously, there are too many "lawyers" walking around lying about our country, our people, our laws and our Constitution. If I know about this 1324a ... 4(c), then she should know about it before she opens her pie-hole on national television. And every member of Congress should know about it, including Luis. So I hope a reporter from Fox or CNN or MSNBC or someone will bring this to light and inform the people of the United States.

So am I to understand that you feel that the law is constitutional and therefore no rights are being violated???

I am not a lawyer or anything, but I would like to engage in an intellectual conversation over this subject.

Do you not feel that this will encourage racial profiling?

I mean, what do the terms "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" really mean? And how will they be applied?

Pretty sure the 14th amendment is going to be violated amongst many other rights of citizens and noncitizens.

Looking forward to your responses.

NOT possessing a valid US drivers license would be reasonable suspicion enough to ask for immigration status.

Lawful contact is any time an you come in contact with a police officer and he asks you for your ID. I don't have a problem showing my ID, do you? The only ones who have a problem are people who have something to hide.

Teenagers are routinely stopped and questioned when they are seen walking late at night. If they have no ID, a parent is called to bring that ID and to pick up the teen. Happened to my daughter last night. Did I have a problem with that? No, I didn't. She had her license, is of age and was sent on her merry way. How were her rights violated?

What a total shame that our government and illegal lovers cheapen the value of United States Citizenship. Our national citizenship has been bought and paid for with the blood of millions of American Citizens for over 230 years. Yet the illegal lovers and our Congress (but then I repeat myself) feel United States Citizenship is worth less than driving privileges.

Being a citizen of the United States of America is an honor, a privilege (like driving) and a responsibility of utmost loyalty. I will gladly let any official in any nation check my identify and proudly show I am a United States Citizen. That will not change until the day the Mexican flag flies over Aztlan...

Pagliacci asked:

Quote:

---

So am I to understand that you feel that the law is constitutional and therefore no rights are being violated???

---

Correct...the law mirrors existing federal law which has been held to be constitutionally valid. Why would this law not be constitutional?

Quote:

---

Do you not feel that this will encourage racial profiling?

---

No I do not...this law has nothing to do with race, as last time I checked, being illegal is not a race. Your question suggests illegal invaders are of a particular race or appearance. Is this true?

I mean, what do the terms "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" really mean? And how will they be applied?

It means the same thing as it would regarding any law that police officers are called upon to enforce. 1070 does not give police the authority to make contact with someone simply because they would like to question their immigration status.

For example, if the posted speed limit is 45 and a police officer observes you doing 55, he has probable cause to pull you over and discuss this violation with you. That would be called a lawful contact.

If during the course of his investigation, he determines (based upon probable cause) the subject might be in this country illegally, he now has the authority to arrest based upon his probable cause.

Quote:

---

Pretty sure the 14th amendment is going to be violated amongst many other rights of citizens and noncitizens.

---

How is asking someone for their identification during the course of an investigation, (based upon probable cause) going to violate someone's rights under the 14th Amendment? That argument could be suggested regarding any law I suppose. It will not go very far.

If you want to discuss violations of the 14th Amendment, perhaps we should start with how it is the offspring of those who entered this country in violation of our immigration laws could be granted US citizenship when their parents are still under the jursidiction of another (and their allegiance) country.

This is especially true since the framers included specific language within the 14th Amendment which excluded US citizenship to the offspring born to foreign diplomats, who would have been in this country legally at the time of said birth.

So how is it that the offspring of foreign diplomats are denied US citizenship, but the offspring of those who entered this country in violation of our immigration laws, (and also still have loyalty to their motherland) could be granted US citizenship with no questions asked?

The same rational for denying the offpsring of foreign diplomants US citizenship, is also present with those who entered this country in violation of our immigration laws.

What's different?

Perhaps this would be a more apt place to start if we are going to discuss violations of the 14th Amendment.

Kyrsten Sinema is an idiot, she was on Washington Journel yesterday....the people of AZ need to throw this big mouth nut case out of office.

And I can not tell you how bad I wanted to wipe that continuing smurk off her face, she made me sick!

8) Very well said NoBueno !

I received a speeding ticket recently :( and when the officer came to my truck window he already knew who owned the truck & where I lived. I was amazed.

I had to produce my drivers license and proof of insurance and pay a huge fine plus take a driving course.I gulped hard but I thanked the officer for protecting us even from my own mistake ( speeding).

Does IA supporters only expect Citizens to respect and abide by our laws ? I think so and citizens are tired of IA's being given special privileges while demanding either certain laws they think will help them be upheld or changed so they can continue their lawlessnss in OUR country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pagliacci

So am I to understand that you feel that the law is constitutional and therefore no rights are being violated???

I am not a lawyer or anything, but I would like to engage in an intellectual conversation over this subject.

Do you not feel that this will encourage racial profiling?

I mean, what do the terms "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" really mean? And how will they be applied?

Pretty sure the 14th amendment is going to be violated amongst many other rights of citizens and noncitizens.

Looking forward to your responses.

---

Correct! Of course US immigration law is constitutional, so is the AZ law that allows local and state police officers to enforce it. No one's rights are being violated by enforcing US immigration law, whether the laws are enforced by Border Patrol Agents, ICE officers, Sheriffs, State Police or Municipal Police Officers.

Racial profiling is illegal in the United States and is specifically prohibited by the AZ immigration law.

The terms "reasonable suspicion" and "lawful contact" mean exactly what they mean when state and local police officers enforce any law of our country.

What rights under the 14th Amendment are violated by enforcing US immigration law?!!!

Quote:

---

14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

---

sorry about the ticket USPatriot but you did what most ( not all)Americans are raised to do and that is take 'personal responsibilty' for our actions...something that seems to be disapearing in this country.

But ahhhh, they had the nerve to ask you for ID :roll: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

sorry about the ticket USPatriot but you did what most ( not all)Americans are raised to do and that is take 'personal responsibilty' for our actions...something that seems to be disapearing in this country.

But ahhhh, they had the nerve to ask you for ID :roll: :lol:

---

Yes it was not easy but the Officer was right and if we stop and think how unsafe our streets would be if we were not held accountable and obey speeding laws everyone would agree we need our laws enforced.

I am furious with the IA's and their enablers who call checking ID's "Racial Profiling" when infact we all have to prove who we are on a regular bases.

Citizens are catching on to their game though and are turning against the pro-IA's once citizens realize they have been duped into believing the racial profiling lie.

It is a real slap in the face to our Police Force to accuse them ALL of racial profiling while walking a tightrope to protect us and enforce our laws without being sued for doing the job we have asked them to do.

Ditto USpatriot...well said!

Quote:

---

But if a LEO is patrolling a neighborhood as one of his duties and sees a group of kids smoking cigarettes, or adults loitering, it would also be lawful contact for him to approach them.

---

Of course it would. Police already had the legal authority to approach individuals under such facts prior to 1070. Why does this bother you? If people are breaking the law, then what's the problem? You use the term kids, so I will assume you mean a minor under the age of 18, which as far as I know, is against the law to be consuming tobacco.

You do understand that police are sworn to uphold the law. Right?

Adults loitering? Yes...loitering is against the law. Why are you opposed to police doing their job? Are you afraid that an illegal invader might be identified and deported?

Quote:

---

The definition is washy.

---

No, the definition is quite clear, Those who are breaking the law will be the targeted. If they happen to be illegal, then too bad for them.

Quote:

---

Okay lets take a different approach. The intent of the bill is to deal with human trafficking, drug trade and other criminal activity.

How are those problems going to be addressed with this bill?

---

Why do we need to take a different approach? This intent of this law is to arrest and deport those who have no legal right to be in this country and who are caught violating the law of Arizona. Your attempts to muddy the waters will not change this.

Quote:

---

I urge you to really consider the reality and implications of such a bill and its effect on the communities and people.

---

I have considered the reality, as well as the implications of this bill and it's effect on the community and people. This is why I support it, as do the majority of Americans!

Have you considered the implications of not passing this bill? When is enough enough ?

I have no concern in respect to the impact this bill might have on those who have entered this country in violation of our immigration laws.

Do you?

What do I need to consider? Let me know when the first American citizen is deported under 1070. Then we can have this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pagliacci

So am I to understand that you feel that the law is constitutional and therefore no rights are being violated???
I am not a lawyer or anything, but I would like to engage in an intellectual conversation over this subject.
Do you not feel that this will encourage racial profiling?
I mean, what do the terms "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" really mean? And how will they be applied?
Pretty sure the 14th amendment is going to be violated amongst many other rights of citizens and noncitizens.
Looking forward to your responses.

---

the law is constitutional since its been a federal law since 1940 that everyone is supposed to have ID. and legal immigrants can be asked for their green cards and other ID.

the law strictly forbids racial profiling and can find said peace officers if they are found guilty of profiling.

The law says that a peace officer in the line of duty can question citizenship if they have "reasonable suspicion" and "lawful contact" means when stopped for a moving violation or arrested for committing a crime.

if i didnt know better, i would say not only are yoiu against the law, but you probably have not read the bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pagliacci

No Bueno and Judy

Thank you for your responses but I must ask, really?

Lawful contact- essentially any interaction a police officer may have with an individual through the normal legal, lawful course of the performance of their duties.

I believe the intent for this means that yes, if you get pulled over going 55 in a 45mph, that is lawful contact.

But if a LEO is patrolling a neighborhood as one of his duties and sees a group of kids smoking cigarettes, or adults loitering, it would also be lawful contact for him to approach them.

The definition is washy.

Even if it weren't, imagine what's going on in Arizona right now.

How can you possibly think that this bill will not lead to racial profiling?

...Okay lets take a different approach. The intent of the bill is to deal with human trafficking, drug trade and other criminal activity.

How are those problems going to be addressed with this bill?

I urge you to really consider the reality and implications of such a bill and its effect on the communities and people.

---

How would you suggest we enforce our immigration laws? what actions would you approve of to solve the problem? How would you go about finding out who is here legally and who is here illegally?

With out laws we are not a sovereign nation, with out law and order we are a nation of chaos and anarchy, no better than any 3rd world country.

Open border lobbyist have no answers because they do not want any laws enforced they want free movement of goods and people...imagine 2 billion people trekking through our country at will, even China could not imagine it. Think it is hard to find a job now, ha! just wait, think 55 cents an hour like China could not happen with over population here.

Does anyone believe they are going to be willing to enforce the laws after another amnesty? I don't think so..it has to stop and it has to stop now.

Common sense tells us the Feds can not handle this on their own, they do not have the man power, it is impossible with out the help of state and local police, so if a few people are inconvienced, so be it.....I am more than willing to show my ID and anyone here on a visa or green card must carry it at all times, I'm sure another law OBL don't like, well too bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pagliacci

No Bueno and Judy

Thank you for your responses but I must ask, really?

Lawful contact- essentially any interaction a police officer may have with an individual through the normal legal, lawful course of the performance of their duties.

I believe the intent for this means that yes, if you get pulled over going 55 in a 45mph, that is lawful contact.

But if a LEO is patrolling a neighborhood as one of his duties and sees a group of kids smoking cigarettes, or adults loitering, it would also be lawful contact for him to approach them.

The definition is washy.

Even if it weren't, imagine what's going on in Arizona right now.

How can you possibly think that this bill will not lead to racial profiling?

...Okay lets take a different approach. The intent of the bill is to deal with human trafficking, drug trade and other criminal activity.

How are those problems going to be addressed with this bill?

I urge you to really consider the reality and implications of such a bill and its effect on the communities and people.

---

If children are smoking under age, they're breaking the law, so any contact with them at that point would be lawful contact. As to "loitering", well, that would depend if the "loitering" were lawful. If they're "loitering" in the alley behind a bank and their buddy is trying to pick the lock, then that would be lawful police contact and reasonable suspiion as well.

There's nothing about this law that changes the definitions of lawful contact, reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and if something happens and "leads to racial profiling", until it exceeds the racial profiling in the War on Drugs, where blacks are targeted, profiled, arrested and incarcerated 7 times more than whites, when there are 7 times more whites than blacks and blacks and whites use drugs at the same rates, please spare me your concerns that enforcement of our laws might "lead to racial profiling".

Finally, the purpose of the AZ immigration law is not just to deal with human trafficking, drug trade and other criminal activity. The purpose of the AZ immigration law is to enforce US immigration law and rid Arizona of illegal aloens, the same purpose of US immigration law which is to rid the United States of illegal aliens, without bias, prejudice, or exception.

As to "imagine what is going on in Arizona now" ... I would hope illegal aliens are gathering, packing, gassing up their vehicles or buying plane or bus tickets and departing our country.

Well Well, did a google on Arpaio-Sinema debate.
Look at what is shown as the SECOND LINK


Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Arpaio debate the immigration bill
Apr 21, 2010 ... PHXATED'S MOST ACTIVE. The Arpaio Follies · Republic Watch ... Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Arpaio debate the immigration bill. Post a comment ...
phxated.com/.../kyrsten-sinema-and-joe-arpaio-debate-the-immigration-bill/ - Cached

ALIPAC Forums-viewtopic-Arizona's SB 1070: Sheriff Joe Arpaio ...
5 posts - 4 authors - Last post: Apr 22
Arizona's SB 1070: Sheriff Joe Arpaio debates Kyrsten Sinema CNN's American Morning with Kiran Chetry and John Roberts (April 21, 2010). ...
www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&f ... wtopic&t... - Cached
Get more discussion results

KTAR.com - Debate rages over Arizona immigration bill
Apr 21, 2010 ... Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a staunch supporter of the bill, and State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, a staunch opponent, debated ...
ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1285454 - Cached

News of Sheriff Joe Arpaio - Topix
20 posts - 4 authors - Last post: May 1
Arizona's SB 1070: Sheriff Joe Arpaio debates Kyrsten Sinema CNN's American Morning with Kiran Chetry and John Roberts (April 21, 2010). ...
www.topix.com/forum/news/immigration/.../p7 - Cached
Get more discussion results

CNN.com - Transcripts
Apr 21, 2010 ... It stirs a national debate over racial profiling. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and state lawmaker Krysten Sinema debate the issue coming up on the ...
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1004/21/ltm.03.html - Cached

Wow, so much to respond too, but Ive been awake for 24 hours... but I like where this is going, and I'm glad to see passionate interested people.

I just want to address these few issues real quick and then Ill post more tomorrow.

I provided examples such as kids smoking and adults loitering as "lawful contact" to demonstrate the lengths to which the police now have the right to carry out their witch hunt of illegal immigrants.

How do you not see that these broad definitions will lead to racial profiling?

I'm sorry I am not a lawyer and do not have the vocabulary or eloquence in expressing my views as some of you do.

I have nothing wrong with police enforcing the law or doing their jobs. It's this proposed law that I have a problem with.

I just really dont see how this bill will have its desired effect. Please explain to me how it will.

In my opinion, 100% of the latino and hispanic community in AZ will be affected by this bill. This includes citizens and non citizens.

While I suspect less than 1% of the "white" community will feel any affect whatsoever. This includes illegal immigrants that arent brown.

ALL of this because of the small portion of illegals that commit heinous crimes? Hardly seems logical to me.

And those claiming its an attempt to deport all illegals. Are you kidding me? I don't have numbers and all that but I'd suspect that there are far more effective ways to approach this that are much more cost effective.

Am I really suppose to believe the small police force in Arizona is suppose to rid the entire state of its illegal immigrants one at a time?
(While the majority of the immigrant community, many legal, suffers this exodus just because they have brown skin and were doing 55 in a 45...)

Come on now lets be practical.

I have a copy of the bill right beside me for who ever said I probably didn't read it. And I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans are not in favor of this bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pagliacci

Wow, so much to respond too, but Ive been awake for 24 hours... but I like where this is going, and I'm glad to see passionate interested people.

I just want to address these few issues real quick and then Ill post more tomorrow.

I provided examples such as kids smoking and adults loitering as "lawful contact" to demonstrate the lengths to which the police now have the right to carry out their witch hunt of illegal immigrants.

How do you not see that these broad definitions will lead to racial profiling?

I'm sorry I am not a lawyer and do not have the vocabulary or eloquence in expressing my views as some of you do.

I have nothing wrong with police enforcing the law or doing their jobs. It's this proposed law that I have a problem with.

I just really dont see how this bill will have its desired effect. Please explain to me how it will.

In my opinion, 100% of the latino and hispanic community in AZ will be affected by this bill. This includes citizens and non citizens.

While I suspect less than 1% of the "white" community will feel any affect whatsoever. This includes illegal immigrants that arent brown.

ALL of this because of the small portion of illegals that commit heinous crimes? Hardly seems logical to me.

And those claiming its an attempt to deport all illegals. Are you kidding me? I don't have numbers and all that but I'd suspect that there are far more effective ways to approach this that are much more cost effective.

Am I really suppose to believe the small police force in Arizona is suppose to rid the entire state of its illegal immigrants one at a time?
(While the majority of the immigrant community, many legal, suffers this exodus just because they have brown skin and were doing 55 in a 45...)

Come on now lets be practical.

I have a copy of the bill right beside me for who ever said I probably didn't read it. And I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans are not in favor of this bill.

---

The "small police force in Arizona"? Arizona has 16,000 sworn police officers.

Please show us in your copy of the Bill of Rights where it says that enforcing US immigration law is a violation of anyone's "civil rights".

I got a ticket for doing 55 in a 45, they asked for my ID, drivers license, car registration and proof of insurance and ran a check on everything.

Were my civil rights violated? I realize now that you're of the mind that if someone has "brown skin" they should have special rights and not be required to abide any law whether it's smoking under age, loitering, speeding or being in our country illegally. But under the Bill of Rights of this country, it matters not what the color of your skin is, if you're smoking under age, loitering in violation of law, speeding, or being in our country illegally, you're violating our laws and will be treated the same as anyone else.

The United States is about equal rights, not special rights. You don't get a "free pass" because of color of your skin in the United States.

If someone wants to "exodus" a state or our country because they don't get special treatment, then don't let the door hit their butt on the way out.

Pagliacci wrote:

Quote:

---

In my opinion, 100% of the latino and hispanic community in AZ will be affected by this bill. This includes citizens and non citizens.

While I suspect less than 1% of the "white" community will feel any affect whatsoever. This includes illegal immigrants that arent brown.

---

Are you suggesting that 100% of the latino community is breaking the law in someway or another? Again, 1070 does not give police the authority to question people simply because the color of their skin. Why do you continue to suggest that it does?

Either you have not read the law, or you are determined to ignore it in lieu of promoting the law will discriminate against brown people agenda. Fortunately, an overwhelming majority of Americans support Arizona and this law.

It's obvious that you view this issue through race colored glasses. Nothing anyone says will convince you that being illegal is not a race and that if you're not breaking the law, you have nothing to fear.

I suggest you go and read 1070 and then come back when you can think objectively, without the taint of race influencing your ability to form an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Pagliacci wrote:

Quote:

---

Are you suggesting that 100% of the latino community is breaking the law in someway or another? Again, 1070 does not give police the authority to question people simply because the color of their skin. Why do you continue to suggest that it does?

No, 100% of that community are not the criminals that this law seeks to find, but 100% of that community will be subjected to the police search.

I continue to suggest that because that is what will happen. The broad terms allow it to occur and that is not okay.

I suggest you go and read 1070 and then come back when you can think objectively, without the taint of race influencing your ability to form an opinion.

I have the bill, theres not taint of race in my ability to understand questionable terms and to realize how they will be applied.

---

---

[/i]

[color=blue]Yesterday while on Bill O'Reilly’s tv show, Nancy Skinner made the claim that Arizona’s new law violates the federal Constitution’s “supremacy clauseâ€

Quote:

---

Im arguing that in reality, illegal immigrants are going to be targeted and deported when they didn't meet the criteria of doing anything illegal.

---

SOB! :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pagliacci

Pretty sure the 14th amendment is going to be violated amongst many other rights of citizens and noncitizens.

Looking forward to your responses.

---

OK "Pagliacci," show me where non-citizens have ANY Constitutional rights.

Furthermore, the majority of Americans are showing themselves to be idiots right now, all the way up to our Attorney General, Eric Holder, who dares to spew out disinformation without even reading the bill.

And yes, they HAVE done something wrong - they entered illegally! And hello? All other legal immigrants must prove that they will not be a burden to the nation by accepting welfare or charity but that requirement has been suspended for the millions of illegal Latinos for decades. They have raped the nation with the complicity of our government and we are demanding that it stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pagliacci

While I suspect less than 1% of the "white" community will feel any affect whatsoever. This includes illegal immigrants that arent brown.

ALL of this because of the small portion of illegals that commit heinous crimes? Hardly seems logical to me.

---

There are plenty of non-brown illegal immigrants that will get their turn as well. There are also many legal immigrants who should not be here - they have been imported to take jobs away from citizens.

Every time a corporation hires an illegal instead of a citizen I consider it to be a "heinous crime."

Once you do start looking at the true numbers perhaps you will understand.

Who is Krysten Sinema?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrsten_Sinema

She comes from a conservative Mormon family and we all know that they practice their own form of protectionism in terms of employment and other "services" to their community.

She is openly bi-sexual according to Wikipedia. So she is an equal opportunity opportunist?

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/Jan ... Sinema.jpg

Ever heard of the gay mafia?

They protect their own too.

Liberals protect their own too.

Correct me if I am wrong but conservatives expect everybody to protect themselves?

Mormons, at least, do have family values - but hasn't she rejected those values to become who she is?

Who will speak for the displaced working class citizen?