Actually it is very simple. Start fining the employers who employ undocumented workers. When the cost of the fines is greater than the savings they make by paying people under minimum wage, they will stop hiring them.

Take away the lollipop and the ants will disappear.

First, it doesn't need to be an either-or situation. You can crack down on both employers and illegals and get the job done twice as fast.

Second, jobs are a main reason they come here, but not the only one. 2 others are benefits (welfare, food stamps, etc) and so that their kids can be born American. We'd need to remove those 2 "lollipops" as well. (Hint: the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the children of illegals who are born here are citizens or not, and the law says that you must be here and "under the jurisdiction of the United States", which IMO should exclude those who sneak in illegally).

Finally, let me point out that the law was amended and clarified... "lawful contact" was changed to “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” And it was reinforced that race may not be used to determine "reasonable suspicion".

Oh good grief.

So the Japanese can racial profile because they the majority of the population of Japan is still Japanese. America can't racial profile by law but would be racist if they did.

Funny how they check Japanese passports entering and leaving Japan from Japanese citizens.

Now insert the UK in the place of Japan. Any different. Lots of races there yet the still ask for ID to prove they are there legally. Are they racists too?

Asking for ID to prove to a law official once stopped is nothing new. Race regardless.

How is the state violiting the Constituition and Bill of Rights and then the fed isn't?

I liked how you quoted MLK. It would be nice if you clarified which injustice and where.

The last sentence above has to be written in a drunken stupor.
Selfish?

Yep.

"I'm not an expert on the Constitution but I know the Constitution exists for a reason," Shakira told reporters after meeting with city officials. "It exists to protect human beings, to protect the rights of people living in a nation with or without documents. We're talking about human beings here."

You have used the word "racist" in just about every post you have made. I don't think I have used it once.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
-Shakespeare

Japan is not America. Japan is homogeneous. America is not. That doesn't make racial profiling right or wrong. I am not saying it is right what they do in Japan, but it is a little more understandable as you can probably count the blond-haired Japanese citizens on two hands. But I already said that.

They check EVERYONE'S passports when they leave the borders. This is true of EVERY COUNTRY. What does that prove? We are talking about state police, legal citizens and on the streets within our borders in the US.

So are you calling for BORDER CHECKS on demand, anytime and anywhere within the borders of the US for all individuals?

That is a pretty extreme attack on freedom and civil rights in America.

Again, it really surprises me you would be supportive of such a thing.

Legal citizens engaged in legal activities. A barrier to that is injustice.

Drink up.

And we are back to read the bill.
You must be stopped criminaly before being asked for ID to prove legalization.
Thus legal activities may be crossed out. Quote great men appropriatly, not on some half wit notion that cops asking someone to produce a government issued state or federal ID in order to ID illegals.

How is the state violating the Constituition and Bill of Rights and then the fed isn't?


If they aren't doing it right, then you think they are doing it wrong? Why? Is racial profiling wrong?

They can count them on two hands? When was the last time you have been to Japan and where? There are all nationalities from all countries, in big numbers there including the ones that are asians from other countries and backgrounds that look Japanese.

If it isn't right as you say, then you think they are doing it wrong? Ah... but its understandable... as you say.

All those countries are doing it wrong, but it because they all look the same in general?
Wow I guess all the countries of the world question their illegals with racial profiling then?

If the bill has changed since your original post, then say so. I have defined LEGAL CONTACT about five times in this thread. If that is changed then say so.

If all people are forced to show legal proof of citizenship, then go for it. Make that reduction of freedoms and civil rights universal.

So let's say I am a brown-skinned man and I call the Arizona police to report a break-in in my home.

Do the police that come and investigate the crime have the authority to force me to prove if I am a legal citizen or not?


If you are saying the police can only ask people who are suspects of criminal acts, then that changes everything.

I am saying Japan is not America.

In Turkey they cut your hand off for shoplifting. I am not saying that is wrong or right, I am saying that is Turkey. We are not talking about Japan or Turkey. We are talking about the USA.

So is Racial Profiling is racist?

Only in America?


You said Japanese law officials use citizenship is based on race in Japan and could count foriegners on their two hands. Why even bother to ask for passports for Japanese readily IDable ?

My point is that the Japanese, like every other country in the world, is doing the same thing to ID legals. Ask for freaking ID to whomever the please whether it is based on race or not.

You are saying we can't even ask for ID to solve our illegal problem even though the law say without racial profiling.

Keep drinking, Clint, and we'll get back to it tomorrow. I don't feel like repeating myself any more tonight.

Good grief.
It has... you are just skimming.

http://www.japanforum.com/forum/gene...tml#post810876

There is a lovely link there too.
Samurai007 also said it.
Try to keep up.

Man you are thick.

Been that way for like a good while.
STOP SKIMMING THE THREADS.
I'm almost tempted to go back through the threads and link all the times I and others said CRIMINAL SUSPECT


My point is Japan and every other country I know racially profile and ask for ID in order to prove legalization; even not being stopped for suspect of a crime. American can't Racial profile for that by law. But you are saying we can't even ask for that because it someway violates the consitution and bill of rights when stopped legally.

Libs and lefties have this notion that racial profiling in attempt to capture a suspect of a crime is racists. If it is, then the whole world is doing, including Japan. Racial profiling doesn't equal racism.

Sorry folks who replied with great posts today...
My small war with MMM pushed carefully typed opinions down in the thread.

I humbly ask for those interesting in this topic to read through other peoples views on this that got buried on this issue, as well of course reading the actual bill and understanding why Arizona is having to act. As MMM is finding out, he isn't up to date on the bill as he may of thought, skimmed and/or didn't read the bill.

Thanks to jbradfor for the corrected link:
http://www.japanforum.com/forum/gene...tml#post810876


As for the racismtopic
Racism, not racial profiling, is properly defined here:
Link: Racism properly defined.

The left-wing media has been doing everything it can to lie about this bill and what it does. You'll hear time after time on those biased sources that it forces or allows cops to demand paper from any Hispanic, at any time for any reason. That isn't true at all, of course, but they are hoping people won't actually read the law but rather give in to their hype and lies, if they repeat them enough times.

Since when did this become a left/right issue?

I am talking about protecting the civil liberties and freedoms of American citizens.

Why do you guys keep trying to make it political?

And Clint, if the wording of the bill has changed, then thank you for telling me. Please don't act like I am working with bad information when I am going off the links you provided. It appears I used the term LEGAL CONTACT today a couple times with you after you knew that was no longer a part of the bill. Just say it. Don't make a big deal about it. I am happy hear the most updated information.

So I would like an answer to my question, though.

If the asking of legality is only in the context of a criminal investigation, can a cop I call ask me for "my papers" if I call 911 after my house has been broken into?

I was called thick for asking this, but I still haven't gotten an answer.

The left continues to make a big deal out of this - see links I provided throughout the thread. Samurai summed it up. That means though, you will have to read the thread.

Keep up or bow out again. Your asking questions and bringing up points that have been answered throughout the thread. If you don't agree with those points, quote them. Don't play ignorant to the fact. I'm just getting tired of replying to someone who skims threads.
Kinda of like the Toyota thread.... "I don't see any Toyota related deaths or articles, but I'm in Japan" - Even though you have Internet.

Legal contact was just further defined in the bill. It can still be called legal contact, just now they SPELL IT OUT.

I make a big deal out of it because you continue to spread false information about the bill after posts in this and the bill prove the point. I refuse to drag you around the thread and to articles and government websites to show you the obvious.

Here we are again even after:
Your 911 call holds no water. I'm not having a beer sumit with you.
Someone else called 911, not the owner of the house.
Spell out your hypotheticals if this isn't what you are going at.
But spell them out to someone else for a while. I'm tired of spoon feeding you.

The law requires only to be asked after being lawfully stopped for a violation etc.
You must always produce ID when being stopped. Your ID is a state or government issued ID (basically ANYTHING). Nothing has changed. You have lost no freedoms or the ridiculous notion of violating the consitution or bill of rights (HA!).
For those who don't carry any ID with you; I don't know how you get by in day to day life.
It is the world we have lived and continue to live in.

MMM, clint's right, I just said that the law was clarified to be a “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” Are you being stopped, detained, or arrested when you call the police because your house was broken into? Unless it looks like you are responsible, as part of some insurance scam, then no.

This is mostly meant to deport illegals who are involved in other crimes, because the federal govt refuses to do it.

Oh the short memory we have:

http://www.japanforum.com/forum/gene...tml#post810141

MMM:
"You aren't reading. It is racist not because a person of any race can be asked but because only persons of certain races can be asked. "

I will not accept any more hypocrisy to further a dead end talking point.
No more sir.

Racial Profiling isn't racist. See Japan example.

Where did he get that only certain races can be asked? If a Russian prostitute were picked up, with a laughably bad fake ID and no proof of being here legally, she'd be sent home too! Why is it Arizona's fault that so very many (but not all) of the illegals are from south of the border? If that's who is breaking the law, that's who is going to be penalized, it's just that simple. But people of any other races found to be here illegally will get the exact same treatment.

I responded to the posts you responded to me, so if I skipped a couple pages that weren't addressing the issues I was bringing up, that is my fault.

Asking for ID to anyone stopped by a police officer on suspicion of committing a crime is normal procedure in any state in the union.

What you are saying is this law is meaningless, as it doesn't change anything about police procedures, as they will be doing what they would have been doing anyway.

• So why is the state of Arizona requesting 10+ million dollars from the Federal government to help train officers in the enforcing this law?

Because that simply isn't the case.

"Reasonable Suspicion" hasn't been defined by ANYONE in terms of this law. It simply says it cannot "solely" be based on race. That solely is a big word and one you have ignored until now.

It also says the officer must act. That is the "shall" part of the law regarding the officer's actions. So it is easy to paint situations where this law would be pretty meaningless and everything goes right.

Cop pulls over speeder. Speeder has no idea. Cop takes in speeder. Suspects he is illegal because he has no license AND he is dark-skinned and has an accent. [Of course there is the then what...is he jailed? Deported? Goes to trial? What?]

However, it is also easy to paint situations where this law does not go well.

Cop pulls over speeder. Driver has ID that looks legit, but he has four passengers in the car that claim to be his wife and children, but none of them have ID. They are dark-skinned and have accents. The officer would have to take them in under the same reasonable suspicion of the first situation.

If they were white with no accents that "reasonable suspicion" would be unfounded. There's the 800-pound gorilla.

Let's say I am a citizen of Arizona. I now have the right to SUE my local law enforcement agency if I believe they are not nabbing enough illegal immigrants in my neighborhood.

Tell me, is that state money well spent?

Yup, I'm glad Shakira stood up for us latinos.

I like that Steve Nash and the Phoenix Suns b-ball team are, too.

NBA notes: 'Los Suns' take a stand
NBA notes » Phoenix will wear special jerseys in response to 'misguided' immigration law.
The Associated Press

The Phoenix Suns will wear "Los Suns" on their jerseys in Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinals tonight, owner Robert Sarver said, "to honor our Latino community and the diversity of our league, the state of Arizona, and our nation."
The decision to wear the jerseys on the Cinco de Mayo holiday stems from a law passed by the Arizona Legislature and signed by Gov. Jan Brewer that has drawn widespread criticism from Latino organizations and civil rights groups that say it could lead to racial profiling of Hispanics. President Barack Obama has called the law "misguided."
The measure makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally, and it directs local police to question people about their immigration status and demand to see their documents if there is reason to suspect they are illegal.
Sarver came up with the "Los Suns" jersey idea but left it up to the players for the final decision, Suns guard Steve Nash said, and all of them were for it.
"I think it's fantastic," Nash said after Tuesday's practice. "I think the law is very misguided. I think it's, unfortunately, to the detriment of our society and our civil liberties. I think it's very important for us to stand up for things we believe in. As a team and as an organization, we have a lot of love and support for all of our fans. The league is very multicultural. We have players from all over the world, and our Latino community here is very strong and important to us."

First, you'll be glad to know that "solely" is gone. That is another one of the changes they made, as I alluded to before. So that should settle that for you, right?

As for why AZ is asking for Federal Training, it's because the Federal govt has been training local law enforcement to arrest illegal aliens since 1996. It's called the 287 (g) program, and for 14 years it has worked rather successfully in 71 law enforcement agencies in 26 states. ICE has trained and certified more than 1,130 state and local officers to enforce immigration law. Since January 2006, the 287(g) program is credited with identifying more than 160,000 potentially removable aliens – mostly at local jails.

You see, this is something you won't hear about on the mainstream media... Local law enforcement in more than half the states are already enforcing immigration laws, so claims that state and local law enforcement can't do it, it's unconstitutional, are rather silly because they've already been doing it for 14 years. So Arizona is asking for the standard ICE training that it gives to all the 287 (g) officers.

Section 287g

Section 287(g): State and Local Immigration Enforcement Efforts Are Working | The Heritage Foundation

again sorta not
 

Established: In 1973 by Joseph Coors (of Coors Beer) and Paul Weyrich
Heritage Foundation's president, Edwin Feulner, who co-founded Belle Haven Consultants, a company with business interests in Malaysia, In 2005, the foundation stated that Malaysia was "moving in the right economic and political direction with some recent bold moves.

Think Tank's Ideas Shifted As Malaysia Ties Grew
Business Interests Overlapped Policy

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 17, 2005; Page A01

For years, the Heritage Foundation sharply criticized the autocratic rule of former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, denouncing his anti-Semitism, his jailing of political opponents and his "anti-free market currency controls."

Then, late in the summer of 2001, the conservative nonprofit Washington think tank began to change its assessment: Heritage financed an Aug. 30-Sept. 4, 2001, trip to Malaysia for three House members and their spouses. Heritage put on briefings for the congressional delegation titled "Malaysia: Standing Up for Democracy" and "U.S. and Malaysia: Ways to Cooperate in Order to Influence Peace and Stability in Southeast Asia."

Heritage's new, pro-Malaysian outlook emerged at the same time a Hong Kong consulting firm co-founded by Edwin J. Feulner, Heritage's president, began representing Malaysian business interests. The for-profit firm, called Belle Haven Consultants, retains Feulner's wife, Linda Feulner, as a "senior adviser." And Belle Haven's chief operating officer, Ken Sheffer, is the former head of Heritage's Asia office and is still on Heritage's payroll as a $75,000-a-year consultant.

Now back to the awesomeness of 287 (g) program



Local law enforcement backs away from punitive 287g programs
By Caroline Fan, Progressive States Network



Local communities are increasingly rejecting punitive anti-immigrant law enforcement policies such as 287g from the previous administration. They are walking away from agreements to have local police serve as federal immigration authorities, rejecting both their budgetary costs and the way they damage relationships and trust between police and the communities they serve. The program has been opposed by over 521 organizations, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Government Accountability Office, and the Police Foundation for being out of control, full of abuses, and not actually fulfilling its stated mission of catching criminals. Most recently, two localities in Massachusetts and Middlesex County, NJ, have dropped their controversial agreements with the federal government. The Framingham, Mass. police chief was quite clear on the importance of the local police authority's ability to set their own priorities:

"It doesn't benefit the Police Department to engage in deportation and immigration enforcement,'' Framingham's chief, Steven Carl, said yesterday...Carl said he signed up two years ago for the sole purpose of accessing federal computer databases to aid in criminal investigations. He assigned two officers to the program, and said the databases helped, but only two or three people were arrested as a result. He said he decided to withdraw over the summer after federal officials asked him to expand the officers' duties to detaining immigrants for deportation, transporting detainees, and having police testify in immigration cases.

Houston's Mayor Bill White has also decided to back off of a proposed 287g agreement after being accepted into the federal program, in another victory for advocates for public safety and immigrant rights. However, he is still open to participating in the Secure Communities program which has less oversight than the 287g program, and is harder to track as it does not necessitate formal Memorandums of Agreement with the federal government. Legislators can take proactive stances against such intrusive and unnecessary policies by passing bills to encourage victims and witnesses of crime, particularly those suffering from domestic violence, to come forward without fear of police inquiry into their immigration status.

A Negative Lesson from Maricopa County: Local law enforcement have taken a lesson in what not to do from Arizona's Maricopa County, where one sheriff has flagrantly violated civil rights and liberties under the guise of immigration enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security's newly revised 287g agreement with Maricopa County's infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio finally curtails his dubious authority to conduct wide-ranging "street sweeps" of entire communities. Arpaio has used his power to terrorize neighborhoods and engaged in massive racial profiling, resulting in a track record of over 2700 lawsuits -- 50 times as many prison-related suits as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston combined -- costing the county over $40 million. Moreover, a local newspaper's investigative series found that Arpaio's single-minded focus on immigration shortchanged the general public safety and resulted in slower response times to emergency calls and decreased arrests. The revised agreement comes shortly after the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) Southwest Border Task Force, a government body, recently recommended that the federal Department of Homeland Security scale back the 287g initiative that allows local authorities to enforce the country's immigration law.

If Shakira really believes the constitution protects whoever, reguardless of legal status, then all illigals won't mind serving in the US army for 5 years. They can become naturalized citizens this way, while at the same time defend the Constitution they "value" so highly.

So if race is not a qualifier for identifying an illegal alien, what is? When the judge asks the cop "What prompted you to have reasonable suspicions that the suspect was not here legally?" then how is the officer going to answer?

$10,000,000 for 15,000 officers comes out to $666.66 PER OFFICER to be trained how to enforce one state law. If one trainer can train 30 cops in a classroom over 10 hours how to enforce this law, that trainer would be paid $2000 an hour. I wonder if they are hiring.

again sorta not
 

You just gave some more 'bs' dude. I hope you are not a recruiter?
Executive Order 13269 - - Expedited Citizenship
By Rod Powers, About.com Guide

Executive Order 13514
Learn About Executive Order 13514

US Citizenship Law

Citizenship

Military Pay Navy

Army Military Shop
Expedited Naturalization of Aliens and Noncitizen Nationals Serving in An Active-Duty Status During the War on Terrorism

Military service does not guarranty a person citizenship it reads '...,eligible
apply for naturalization'.
below is the section pertaining to 13269 which only gives promise of 'eligible.

Service During Hostilities : By Executive Order Number 13269, dated July 3, 2002, President Bush declared that all those persons serving honorably in active-duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States at any time on or after September 11, 2001 until a date to be announced, are eligible to apply for naturalization in accordance with the service during hostilities statutory exception in Section 329 of the INA to the naturalization requirements.

I'm actually for makeing it law, serve 5 years, become a citizen. If citizenship was what they truely wanted.

Right now most illigals are just Mexicans who work up here, don't pay taxes, don't pay Social Security, and send most the money back home, it's why Mexico is makeing such an issue about inforeceing this law, because it's a large part of thier economy.

Yes, I said Mexicans..they aren't really "Illigals" in the sense they want to come to America and be American's, because they don't. They aren't illigal imigrants, they are illigal nationals of a foreign power who is quasi unfriendly. They are trying to regain "azetland", the states the US took dureing the Mexican American war, wich include California, Nevada, Texas, New Mexico. It's why they say they "didn't cross the border, the border crossed them". They decided they will just "migrate" up here and take it by devault, because they end up being the primary population.

Our southern border needs to be walled off and several combat divisions asigned to guard it, period.

Actually employed illegal workers do pay taxes and do pay Social Security. It all comes out of their paychecks. Remember, no one is going after the employers who hire them, unless they don't pay their taxes on the workers they employ-legal or not.

The vast majority of those undocumented workers who cross the border illegally are not trying to regain anything other than money. Why has the number increased so greatly? Because NAFTA flooded Mexico with cheap products from China, and industry and agriculture was largely destroyed in Mexico. Walmart is the largest retailer in Mexico.

You are right, they are not coming to be citizens, but they are coming to feed their families.

So you can call them criminals and dehumanize them if you like, but they are not an invading army, they are victims of a destroyed economy and are trying to find something better.

If the shoe was on the other foot, what would you do?

That is awesome~! It makes me a bit happier bout this situation.

The good news keeps coming:

FOXNews.com - California Students Sent Home for Wearing U.S. Flags on Cinco de Mayo

It's too bad no one took the time to teach those kids proper respect for the American flag.

United States Code: Title 4,8. Respect for flag | LII / Legal Information Institute

They don't pay their full amount... they all know to claim "Married" and 8 or 9 Dependents, which reduces withholding to a very minimal amount, and then they don't file taxes to pay the remaining amount or prove that they really have that many dependents. If/when the govt starts coming after them for not filing, they change IDs again. I've seen this many times.

To say they don't pay taxes is baloney. Yes, they do not file tax returns, but that is different than "not paying taxes".

Why doesn't the government come after those that employ them? That would be much easier than going after the the individual illegal employee.

this law is misguided although they are trying to go through the guise of upholding the law they are actually directing thier anger and hate on those less capable of defending themselves let let arizona play their childish games and lets boycott anything accociated with arizona lets pull out of arizona and lets show them what makes their state run the world should come to a realization that the only way to make things run smoothly is by cooperation lets learn to work hand in hand and quit this senseless bickering everybody grow up and see what the future has in store gor everyone if such decisions are taken which side will you choose

if the employer lets them change their info then the employer should be held acountable but most employees pay their taxes for the sole reason of not wanting the spot light on them if you eliminate these employees then you will reduce the tax intake so dont shoot yourself in the foot have a reform and have them pay fines keep them eplyed and the country will gain finacially by the fines

finaaly someone who hit the right button proper display of the colors

Your right, the Mexican kids shunning and complaining that the kids wearing something with the American flag on it, in America, should be taught proper respect.

No, the kids weren't wearing an actual flag. That would be disrepecting the flag.
Please read the actual article. Your link is irrelevant. That would keep the president from wearing a American flag pin etc.

It is a sad day when we can't display the flag in America.

Even more surprising the were kicked off campus and asked for an apology.

There you go MMM, your favorite source for news:
Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees - NBCBAYAREA- msnbc.com

Notice the reason wasn't for improper display of the red, white and blue.