Violation of Arizona law to be illegally in the US!

[Martok]

She didn't have her papers!!

[Coito ergo sum]

Manufactured messenger-shooting outrage from the Foxies, as usual, based in this case on outdated information (as opposed to just making stuff up, which they're better at.)

Mexican Congress votes to decriminalize illegal immigration

MEXICO CITY — Migrant rights activists applauded a vote by Mexico's Congress to remove long-standing
criminal penalties for undocumented migrants found in the country.

The measure passed unanimously in the lower house on Tuesday, a day after Senate approval. President
Felipe Calderón's office declined to say whether he would sign the popular measure into law.

Mexican lawmakers saw the harsh penalties as an anachronism, and some noted that Mexico also owes
migrants better treatment.
...

Mexico is backing off on its harsh immigration laws (with wildly popular support, I might add) while we're implementing what they've termed anachronisms.

Yeah, but they aren't backing off the law that allows police to check someone's immigration status. That's just plain fucking normal in almost every country EXCEPT the United States.

Their harsh immigration laws are things like, "we can kick you out of the country without due process," "no freedom of speech for non-citizens of Mexico," and 10 year jail sentences for illegal immigrants who are caught a second time.

[Coito ergo sum]

She didn't have her papers!!

That's not reality.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/04/2 ... ogy-guide/

[Coito ergo sum]

Lawmaker: Obama to send 1,200 troops to border
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1


Soooooooo.....let's get this straight.... it's "unfortunate" and "ill advised" and "racist" to verify someone's immigration status, but it's fine and dandy to send soldiers with guns to stop, arrest, and detain "suspected" illegal immigrants....

On what basis will their "suspicion" be made? Isn't it inherently racist? They're sending troops to the border to stop brown people, right?

If not, why can't Arizona state police make the same decisions that soldiers will make?

Heck, the soldiers don't even have to stop the people for something other than suspected illegal status. They just have to see somebody walking around in southern Arizona, and they will stop him or her. They will say "stop! or we'll shoot!" probably in Spanish, and they'll raise their weapons. Without having committed any crime other than being in the US, the people will have to stop and identify themselves and the troops will take them in and verify their immigration status.

[Svartalf]

given that the soldiers at the border will do what soldiers are for, while the law effectively turns every policeman into an IRS auxiliary with orders to pay special attention to those extra duties that are not normally part of his load, and that come on top of all the work they already have, without more cops getting hired... I don't see what Obama sending soldiers to the border to stop crossings has to do with the state law.

[Coito ergo sum]

given that the soldiers at the border will do what soldiers are for, while the law effectively turns every policeman into an IRS auxiliary with orders to pay special attention to those extra duties that are not normally part of his load, and that come on top of all the work they already have, without more cops getting hired... I don't see what Obama sending soldiers to the border to stop crossings has to do with the state law.

My point was not that it had something to do with state law. My point is that the soldiers will have to make the same judgment call the AZ police are being asked to make, except the soldiers don't need to have justifiably stopped a person for a non-immigration reason first. They can just stop, detain and verify immigration status because they think someone crossed illegally.

And, soldiers are not for border control. Border patrol officers are for border patrol. Soldiers are for war.

Further, the AZ law did not turn police into "IRS auxiliaries" because lawful presence in the country has nothing to do with the IRS.

Whether Arizona hires more cops is up to Arizona. However, the objections to the law were not based on this requirement causing them to hire new cops. It was called racist and Nazi-like (even though every other country in the world allows their police to check immigration status when they detain a person - Arizona is just enacting a law to do what every other nation already does, including Mexico).

[Svartalf]

the fact that the soldiers will patrol wildeness for any suspicious people probably not even on roads while the new law is aimed at cops that operate in completely different environments (except highway patrol... but that's another matter) and are much less likely to stumble on people who are out of place without the trappings you'd expect a normal person with half legitimate reason to be in the same place... your remark looks to me like a complete non sequitur.

[Coito ergo sum]

You need to look up the definition of "non sequitur."

[Svartalf]

Dunno, I follow the older definition that treats it as a form of false syllogism where the premisses don't actually support the conclusion... and possibly don't actually have anything to do with them.

Calling Obama's decision to call some soldiers to plug some of the holes in that sieve you call a border has precisely nothing to do with the matter of the Az law, hence your use of it falls under the definition.

[Coito ergo sum]

Justice Department officials have drafted a legal challenge asserting that Arizona's controversial immigration law is unconstitutional because it impinges on the federal government's authority to police the nation's borders, sources said Wednesday.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 1283.story

I can't wait to read this brief. The "discrimination" and "racism" allegations are sexy and make for good arguments on MSNBC, FOX and CNN, but this federal preemption argument is really the only one that has any weight to it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hungary Adopts Citizenship Law
Stefan Bos | Budapest 27 May 2010

Hungary's new parliament has adopted a controversial law that will grant citizenship to ethnic Hungarians living in neighboring nations nearly nine decades after the country lost two-thirds of its territory. The law comes Wednesday despite a major
diplomatic row with neighboring Slovakia which has immidiately retaliated with legislation banning double citizenship.

Now THIS is a racist/ethnocentric law. Granting citizenship to nonresidents based solely on race/ethnicity. http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/eu ... 01319.html

[Svartalf]

That's old news... Israel has a similar policy (any Jew can make his "come back"), and Germany used to have a similar policy, particularly concerning ethnic Germans from the Soviet block (Polish and Baltic Germans, Volga Germans...)

[Coito ergo sum]

That's old news... Israel has a similar policy (any Jew can make his "come back"), and Germany used to have a similar policy, particularly concerning ethnic Germans from the Soviet block (Polish and Baltic Germans, Volga Germans...)

The article about Hungary is dated May 27, and whether Israel or Germany did it doesn't make it less ethnocentric, does it? Those countries also, by the way, allow their police to check identification and verify immigration status of stopped or detained individuals (even without "reasonable cause" to believe a person is unlawfully present).

[Martok]

WASHINGTON — Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says Arizona must figure out how to show it appreciates, respects and admires the Hispanics who live there after passing a tough new immigration law.

The law will make entering the country illegally a state crime in Arizona and requires local police to enforce it. It has sparked demonstrations across the country, predominantly from Hispanics, who feel they will be targeted by racial profiling.

O'Connor tells ABC's "Good Morning America" that Hispanics have lived in Arizona since long before it was a state, and Arizona must now show it is not "as a whole, a biased state."

The former Arizona state senator and judge declined to say whether the law is constitutional, but says she is sure "sections of it will be challenged."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD9FV6H0O2