'Arizona Style' Immigration Law Proposed in Texas

'Arizona Style' Immigration Law Proposed in Texas

radio.woai.com...

From the article:
"Less than an hour after the period began for filing bills for consideration in the 2011 Legislative session, State Rep. Debbie Riddle (R-Tomball), a leader of the newly muscular conservatives in the Legislature, filed an 'Arizona style' measure that would crack down on illegal immigration, 1200 WOAI news reports."

Related ATS topics:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It looks like Texas is getting on board. Many states have new, more conservative legislatures. My belief is that the states, like Texas in this article, are ultimately going to get their way. The federal government has overplayed their hand on this issue as well as many more, and the states are fighting back.

reply to post by Stewie

Additionally, if this bill becomes law, there will be NO sanctuary cities in Texas receiving state funds. Since the state receives the funds from the people in the cities, I am not sure how that would work legally. Can the city withhold funds meant for the state because they have filed a bill that the city disagrees with?
Messy.
I disagree with sanctuary cities, but I think the state should just go at it with the laws currently on the books.

I am not really concerned with what laws states pass as far as immigration goes, what I am concerned of is if it singles out specific groups of LEGAL citizens for harassment by police. People who come here legally should not face harassment because they may look differently or speak another language, if they come here and are citizens of this country, they need to be granted all the rights other citizens receive.

People should ask themselves, is this a law I would tolerate used against me? Should American Citizens have to tolerate harassment by the police because of their accent?

What I would like to see is when someone who is a legal citizen is stopped by the police for a crime, and asked about their citizenship status (a violation of the 4th Amendment) they should sue the state for that violation. If they are legal US Citizens, they should not be discriminated against and have their 4th Amendment rights violated. If a cop questions their citizenship and they are legal US Citizens, that cop should have had no reason to question it to begin with and has clearly initiated an illegal search of that persons personal papers and effects.

Sadly because the Feds won't do their job, States are desperate to do something about it. Many States have tried to pass bills about coming down on companies that hire illegals and have been shot down. Illegal immigration is a huge problem and something has to be done soon.

reply to post by Night Star


But at the same time, it has to be done the right way and not in a way that is going to strip US Citizens of their constitutional rights.

Laws that target US Citizens for harassment by police and unwarranted searches and seizures have to be guarded against. I for one would sue the holy hell out of a city or state that harassed me on my citizenship status because I was born in the US. I wouldn't stop till the cop who did it was penniless and homeless for the rest of his life if one dared to pull something like what is being proposed on me.

Reply to post by whatukno

Go go Texas!

If you get pulled over, does the cop have the right to ask you for your drivers license?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by whatukno
I am not really concerned with what laws states pass as far as immigration goes, what I am concerned of is if it singles out specific groups of LEGAL citizens for harassment by police. People who come here legally should not face harassment because they may look differently or speak another language, if they come here and are citizens of this country, they need to be granted all the rights other citizens receive.

First off, I am an immigrant and although I speak excellent English I do have a slight accent. So I guess I belong to the category which you worry about. Second, I find your point of view rather simplistic. I don't see the rights of anyone being revoked under these new laws. Harassment, in my view, constitutes measures beyond what is mandated by the law. A check of identity is NOT it.

People who came here legally deserve the right to see that this country is not overrun by illegals, thus betraying their trust in fairness and equality of the system. Everything else is bullcr@p.

I'm hoping this doesn't pass because it's unconstitutional. The constitution states quite explicitly that the Federal Government is in charge of immigration. The two references in the Constitution that specifically mention , “naturalization, ” are found in Article I, Section 8 in creating the authority of the Congress, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.

The second reference is located in the 14th Amendment shown above stating that , “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” are, “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

While Congress has the Constitutional authority to establish laws of naturalization or immigration they do not have a true Constitutional authority to create blanket legislation that allows non - citizens the rights of born or naturalized Americans. In other words amnesty is technically unconstitutional because it bypasses the laws which are established for immigrants to become American citizens.

The beginning of the Preamble of the Constitution states clearly who gives authority to the government and in whom the rights established in the Constitution belong to and they are,” We the People of the United States.”

The Framers clearly show that the laws governing this country as established in the Constitution and the rights that are available are for citizens of this land. Even the very Representation in our government from the President to the Congress are established that eligibility to hold public office is reserved for citizens only with the President required to be a natural born citizen of The United States and not a naturalized citizen.

However, you must have uniformity. You cannot have 50 different states with 50 different Immigration rules. The enforcement of that would be chaotic at best and completely impossible at worst. We are a sovereign nation that needs to have uniform immigration policy and we've got one. Even Judge Napolitano (from Fox News, not Big Sis) has said that what Arizona is doing is ridiculous. As a Texas, I sincerely hope that we don't pass a law like Arizona.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


What if your walking on the street? Not driving a car, not everyone in the world drives everywhere they go.

Don't need to have a walking licence do you?

And if you are walking along, and are stopped for some thing you "allegedly" have done, what does your citizenship status have to do with what you are accused of?

Such laws will have little impact on the real problem. The way to solve it has always been to go after those that hire them. As long as the employers get only a wrist slap for hiring illegals, the illegals will keep coming for the jobs they provide. Of course, you will seldom see a Republican in Texas even suggesting going after the businesses. As many of their contributers hire illegals. You see illegals working in almost every business in Texas.

Originally posted by justinsweatt
I'm hoping this doesn't pass because it's unconstitutional. The constitution states quite explicitly that the Federal Government is in charge of immigration. The two references in the Constitution that specifically mention , “naturalization, ” are found in Article I, Section 8 in creating the authority of the Congress, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.

The second reference is located in the 14th Amendment shown above stating that , “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” are, “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Don't you see that your references are as relevant to the topic as are directions on the bottle of detergent in your basement?

First, States do NOT try to establish "rules of naturalization". They are helping enforce basic immigration procedures less complicated and involved than any naturalization. Further, people who are not naturalized are not citizens so your reference to the 14th is laughable.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Not exactly, what they are doing is stripping people who are in this country legally of their 4th Amendment right to be secure in their personal papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. If you are arrested for a crime, you are still innocent until proven guilty, they tack on a second accusation of a crime automatically, and without a warrant or probable cause, they want to search you for your papers. That is the problem here. That is why this is unconstitutional.

The police cannot just search you without justifiable reason to do so, they certainly cannot take your papers without a warrant.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Not exactly, what they are doing is stripping people who are in this country legally of their 4th Amendment right to be secure in their personal papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures.

You choose to conveniently omit the fact that the law chiefly applies to people IN POLICE CUSTODY. Did you even read the source in the OP?

And, the 4th was written in times when a large fraction of people you see in certain areas are actually breaking the law by crossing the border illegally. Thing is, that completely changes what's reasonable and what not. I was on a grand jury duty and heard about cases (not the ones we were considering) where there was a DUI arrest and instead of driver license the perp produced some Mexican ID. Wouldn't it make you wonder? Wouldn't you want to know whether he/she is indeed illegal? You see, it's also a matter of jurisdiction. Has the person a right to contact the Mexican consulate? Is he wanted there?

Gangs are infiltrating the country and ruining lives for many people here, and you complain about identity checks of people held BY THE POLICE?

Beyond me.

reply to post by buddhasystem


The 4th Amendment was ratified in 1791, it's one of your most important protections under the Bill of Rights. Yes, gangs are a problem, and their members aren't just illegals, but citizens as well, so your implied generalization of gang members as being illegals is factious at best and a weak argument.

But we have plenty of laws specifically written for gangs and gang activity, I don't think that we as a people need to give up our rights because of fear of gangs.

If I am walking down the street and I get accused of a crime, the officer filing charges of that crime has to have probable cause to search me. That's the great thing about the 4th Amendment, what this law does is takes away that protection and gives the police sweeping new powers to detain me if I don't happen to have any identification on me. And if I am walking down the street, I don't need any identification.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Actually, no it's not. What is laughable is anyone who is on the pro side of the Arizona Immigration Rule.

1. The Federal Government sets Immigration policy, ie Congress.
2. The law will get struck down and rightfully so on the Federal level.
3. "If each state could regulate immigration as it sees fit, you would have 50 different regulations instead of one"-Judge Andrew Napolitano.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm not suggesting that we turn a blind eye to the problems of Immigration that we have in this country, I am suggesting that Texas not follow into the rabbit hole of Arizona.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Really? You're suggesting a police state because of some notion of something intangible like "safety"? Really?! What I have to say to people like you is get. a. warrant. Ugh. Don't hold up gangs and then talk about what people meant over 200 years ago either. Unless you invented a time machine and then hey, I stand corrected.

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Really? You're suggesting a police state because of some notion of something intangible like "safety"?

I grew up in a tough neighborhood and believe me, safety is as tangible as anything you'll ever experience. I'm not suggesting a police state, by the way, that's demagoguery on your part. I'm against wiretaps and house entries w/o a warrant (sadly a reality).

People squeal "police state" when they have police identifying a person in their custody? Puh-leeze.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Really? You're suggesting a police state because of some notion of something intangible like "safety"?

I grew up in a tough neighborhood and believe me, safety is as tangible as anything you'll ever experience. I'm not suggesting a police state, by the way, that's demagoguery on your part. I'm against wiretaps and house entries w/o a warrant (sadly a reality).

People squeal "police state" when they have police identifying a person in their custody? Puh-leeze.

Demagoguery? Really? You want a cookie or a T-shirt that says "I grew up in a tough neighborhood" with a pat on the back? Frankly, who cares? Talk about Demagoguery. I'm not trying to be rude, I just think that response is pretty weak. You're way too smart for something that short sided, in my opinion.

Even in Police Custody you have the right to remain silent which means you don't have to identify yourself either. You can sit there and say nothing. It's called the 5th Amendment.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Night Star

 

But at the same time, it has to be done the right way and not in a way that is going to strip US Citizens of their constitutional rights.

Laws that target US Citizens for harassment by police and unwarranted searches and seizures have to be guarded against. I for one would sue the holy hell out of a city or state that harassed me on my citizenship status because I was born in the US. I wouldn't stop till the cop who did it was penniless and homeless for the rest of his life if one dared to pull something like what is being proposed on me.

So make it a law that ANYBODY who is stopped by law enforcement is required to produce a valid Government issued ID. The Arizona law only asks police to ask for ID in the event of an interaction with law enforcement, not to stop people in the street.

It's the LAW in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY. I don't know why it isn't in the USA.

This would stop racial profiling, as everyone would be treated the same way.

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Night Star

 

But at the same time, it has to be done the right way and not in a way that is going to strip US Citizens of their constitutional rights.

Laws that target US Citizens for harassment by police and unwarranted searches and seizures have to be guarded against. I for one would sue the holy hell out of a city or state that harassed me on my citizenship status because I was born in the US. I wouldn't stop till the cop who did it was penniless and homeless for the rest of his life if one dared to pull something like what is being proposed on me.

So make it a law that ANYBODY who is stopped by law enforcement is required to produce a valid Government issued ID. The Arizona law only asks police to ask for ID in the event of an interaction with law enforcement, not to stop people in the street.

It's the LAW in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY. I don't know why it isn't in the USA.

This would stop racial profiling, as everyone would be treated the same way.

You know why they do it in every other country? They don't have a constitution and frankly, we're a democratic republic who should not be doing the "but other countries do it" teenage rhetoric. Like your mom probably told you, just because other people do it, doesn't make it right.