My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. law

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bro. Stewart P.M.

Lead Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member
When did it become acceptable to ignore the law?

THAT has been my point all along.

I wasted 2 days arguing with some guy about how immigration laws were prior to 1833... no matter what I said about the issue "I was in the wrong", and when I finally said that the current rules and regulations have nothing to do with laws prior to 1833 I was labled a hate monger and racist (by a "Brother" at that).

The nerve.

The fact of the matter is we have current laws and requirements regarding becomming a citizen here in the USA. These laws need to either be enforced, or removed. In the mean time everyone must follow the laws right or wrong. If you are in this country without following the proper protocol then you do not belong here, nor are you "entitled" to recieve all the benefits as a citizen. This applies to every type of immigrant from every country not just one no matter what language you speak!!


Do the Right thing.
 

Ben Rodriguez

Registered User
Bottom line is, if you live in Arizona and look brown, speak Spanish or have an accent, you will be harassed by the authority. My skin isn't white, that's for sure, I speak Spanish and my accent does come out with certain words. My problem is the SB1070 as a reason to legally harass our people regardless of their nationality. Doesn't sound very noble does it? I am not saying EVERYONE should be allowed into the country, but if we actually stopped and studied this matter carefully for a reasonable solution, I am sure it would be a win-win situation. Rather than saying: "Kick them all out, ignore them and let them starve in their countries"

An amnesty after a meticulous background screening to all foreigners would eventually mean people who work and are able to pay taxes, which brings revenue. But why bother with logic right? :)

Again, just my very humble opinion in the subject. We all know what the "right thing" is, it's a matter of putting politics to the side and loving one another as one common mass. It's about tolerance to just and needy.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
OK- enough BS. Here's the straight gouge from Gov. Brewer:

"In my 28 years of public service, I have made a lot of tough calls. But with a federal
government unwilling to secure our border for years and years, Arizona is left with
little choice. Imagine a sporting event in which rules have been agreed to for 70 years,
but the umpires refuse to enforce those rules. It makes no sense. Although I recognize
that Arizona Senate Bill 1070, as amended, is not the entire solution to our illegal
immigration problem in Arizona, most people are united in the hope that it will finally
inspire the politicians in Washington, D.C., to stop talking and to start action now.

It is critically important that all Americans understand the impetus for this new law and
have a clear understanding of the law itself. Our neighbor to the south, Mexico, is in a
massive battle with well-organized drug cartels. Because of Washington's failure to
secure our southern border, Arizona has become the superhighway of illegal drug and human
smuggling activity. In December 2008, the U.S. Justice Department said that Mexican gangs
are the "biggest organized crime threat to the United States." In 2009, Phoenix had 316
kidnapping cases, turning the city into our nation's kidnapping capital. Almost all of
the persons kidnapped were illegal immigrants or linked to the drug trade.

Essentially, our border leaks like a team with a last-place defense. The very same week
that I signed the new law, a major drug ring was broken up and Mexican cartel operatives
suspected of running 40,000 pounds of marijuana through southern Arizona were indicted.

While drug smuggling is the principal cause of our massive border-violence problem, many
of the same criminal organizations also smuggle people. Busts of drop houses, where
illegal immigrants are often held for ransom or otherwise severely abused, are not
uncommon occurrences in Arizona neighborhoods.

Today, Arizona has approximately 6,000 prison inmates who are foreign nationals,
representing a cost to our state of roughly $150 million per year. Arizona taxpayers are
paying for a vast majority of these incarceration expenses because the federal government
refuses to pay what it owes. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, as governor of
Arizona, sent numerous requests to the federal government to pay for these prisoners --
only to be given the same answer she and President Barack Obama are now giving Arizona:
They will not pay the bill.

When I signed the legislation, I stated clearly I will not tolerate racial discrimination
or racial profiling in Arizona. My administration worked for weeks with legislators to
improve SB 1070, to specifically clarify and strengthen its civil rights protections. I
issued an executive order to implement proper training and enforcement protocols for our
police so that the intent of the language could not be misconstrued. Although it is
already against the law, the new law undeniably prohibits law enforcement officers from
considering race, color or national origin in implementing the new statute.

I have worked for years without fail to solve problems diligently and practically. I have
done so always with an eye toward civility, and always with the greatest respect for the
rule of law.

This new law is no different. As committed as I am to protecting our state from crime
associated with illegal immigration, I am equally committed to holding law enforcement
accountable should this statute ever be misused to violate an individual's rights.

There have been countless distortions, honest omissions, myths and bad information about
Arizona's new law -- many, undoubtedly, spread to create fear or mistrust.

So here are the facts:

1. The new Arizona law creates a state penalty to mirror what already is a federal crime.
Despite the most vile and hate-filled portrayals of proponents of the law as "Nazis,"
actions that have been condemned nationally by the Anti-Defamation League, it is ALREADY
a federal requirement for legal aliens in the United States to carry their green card or
other immigration document. The new Arizona law enforces what has been a federal crime
since before World War II. As anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have
similar laws.

2. Contrary to many of the horror stories being spread -- President Obama suggested
families risk being pulled over while going out for ice cream -- law enforcement cannot
randomly ask anyone about their immigration status. Much like enforcement of seat belt
laws in many states, under SB 1070 there must first be reasonable suspicion that you are
breaking some OTHER non-immigration law before an officer can ask a person about their
legal status. Only then, after law enforcement officers have a "reasonable suspicion"
that another law has been broken, can they inquire about immigration status -- but ONLY
if that individual's behavior provides "reasonable suspicion" that the person is here
illegally.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a well-understood concept that has been thoroughly vetted
through numerous federal court cases. Many have asked: What is reasonable suspicion? Is
it race, skin color or national origin? No! Racial profiling is prohibited in the new
law. Examples of reasonable suspicion include: a person running away when approached by
law enforcement officers, or a car failing to stop when the police turn on their lights
and siren.

3. Arizona's local law enforcement officers, who already reflect the great diversity of
culture in our state, are going to be trained to enforce the new immigration law in a
constitutional manner. It is shameful and presumptive for opponents to question the good
will and the competence of Arizona's law enforcement personnel. The specter that is
raised of rogue, racist police harassing people is insulting to those in Arizona who risk
their lives in the name of law enforcement every day.

President Theodore Roosevelt said, "No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor
do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is
demanded as a right; not asked as a favor." Arizona has been more than patient waiting
for Washington to act. Decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a
dangerous and unacceptable situation. Arizona has acted to enforce the rule of law
equally and without bias toward any person.

It is time for our country to act to resolve our border security problem; an economic
boycott in Arizona would only exacerbate it -- and hurt innocent families and businesses
merely seeking to survive during these difficult economic times.

A boycott that would actually improve border security would be to boycott illegal drugs.
Dramatically less drug use and production would do wonders for the safety of all our
communities."

Jan Brewer is the governor of Arizona.
 

Bro. Stewart P.M.

Lead Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member
OK- enough BS. Here's the straight gouge from Gov. Brewer:

"In my 28 years of public service, I have made a lot of tough calls. But with a federal
government unwilling to secure our border for years and years, Arizona is left with
little choice. Imagine a sporting event in which rules have been agreed to for 70 years,
but the umpires refuse to enforce those rules. It makes no sense. Although I recognize
that Arizona Senate Bill 1070, as amended, is not the entire solution to our illegal
immigration problem in Arizona, most people are united in the hope that it will finally
inspire the politicians in Washington, D.C., to stop talking and to start action now.

It is critically important that all Americans understand the impetus for this new law and
have a clear understanding of the law itself. Our neighbor to the south, Mexico, is in a
massive battle with well-organized drug cartels. Because of Washington's failure to
secure our southern border, Arizona has become the superhighway of illegal drug and human
smuggling activity. In December 2008, the U.S. Justice Department said that Mexican gangs
are the "biggest organized crime threat to the United States." In 2009, Phoenix had 316
kidnapping cases, turning the city into our nation's kidnapping capital. Almost all of
the persons kidnapped were illegal immigrants or linked to the drug trade.

Essentially, our border leaks like a team with a last-place defense. The very same week
that I signed the new law, a major drug ring was broken up and Mexican cartel operatives
suspected of running 40,000 pounds of marijuana through southern Arizona were indicted.

While drug smuggling is the principal cause of our massive border-violence problem, many
of the same criminal organizations also smuggle people. Busts of drop houses, where
illegal immigrants are often held for ransom or otherwise severely abused, are not
uncommon occurrences in Arizona neighborhoods.

Today, Arizona has approximately 6,000 prison inmates who are foreign nationals,
representing a cost to our state of roughly $150 million per year. Arizona taxpayers are
paying for a vast majority of these incarceration expenses because the federal government
refuses to pay what it owes. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, as governor of
Arizona, sent numerous requests to the federal government to pay for these prisoners --
only to be given the same answer she and President Barack Obama are now giving Arizona:
They will not pay the bill.

When I signed the legislation, I stated clearly I will not tolerate racial discrimination
or racial profiling in Arizona. My administration worked for weeks with legislators to
improve SB 1070, to specifically clarify and strengthen its civil rights protections. I
issued an executive order to implement proper training and enforcement protocols for our
police so that the intent of the language could not be misconstrued. Although it is
already against the law, the new law undeniably prohibits law enforcement officers from
considering race, color or national origin in implementing the new statute.

I have worked for years without fail to solve problems diligently and practically. I have
done so always with an eye toward civility, and always with the greatest respect for the
rule of law.

This new law is no different. As committed as I am to protecting our state from crime
associated with illegal immigration, I am equally committed to holding law enforcement
accountable should this statute ever be misused to violate an individual's rights.

There have been countless distortions, honest omissions, myths and bad information about
Arizona's new law -- many, undoubtedly, spread to create fear or mistrust.

So here are the facts:

1. The new Arizona law creates a state penalty to mirror what already is a federal crime.
Despite the most vile and hate-filled portrayals of proponents of the law as "Nazis,"
actions that have been condemned nationally by the Anti-Defamation League, it is ALREADY
a federal requirement for legal aliens in the United States to carry their green card or
other immigration document. The new Arizona law enforces what has been a federal crime
since before World War II. As anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have
similar laws.

2. Contrary to many of the horror stories being spread -- President Obama suggested
families risk being pulled over while going out for ice cream -- law enforcement cannot
randomly ask anyone about their immigration status. Much like enforcement of seat belt
laws in many states, under SB 1070 there must first be reasonable suspicion that you are
breaking some OTHER non-immigration law before an officer can ask a person about their
legal status. Only then, after law enforcement officers have a "reasonable suspicion"
that another law has been broken, can they inquire about immigration status -- but ONLY
if that individual's behavior provides "reasonable suspicion" that the person is here
illegally.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a well-understood concept that has been thoroughly vetted
through numerous federal court cases. Many have asked: What is reasonable suspicion? Is
it race, skin color or national origin? No! Racial profiling is prohibited in the new
law. Examples of reasonable suspicion include: a person running away when approached by
law enforcement officers, or a car failing to stop when the police turn on their lights
and siren.

3. Arizona's local law enforcement officers, who already reflect the great diversity of
culture in our state, are going to be trained to enforce the new immigration law in a
constitutional manner. It is shameful and presumptive for opponents to question the good
will and the competence of Arizona's law enforcement personnel. The specter that is
raised of rogue, racist police harassing people is insulting to those in Arizona who risk
their lives in the name of law enforcement every day.

President Theodore Roosevelt said, "No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor
do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is
demanded as a right; not asked as a favor." Arizona has been more than patient waiting
for Washington to act. Decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a
dangerous and unacceptable situation. Arizona has acted to enforce the rule of law
equally and without bias toward any person.

It is time for our country to act to resolve our border security problem; an economic
boycott in Arizona would only exacerbate it -- and hurt innocent families and businesses
merely seeking to survive during these difficult economic times.

A boycott that would actually improve border security would be to boycott illegal drugs.
Dramatically less drug use and production would do wonders for the safety of all our
communities."

Jan Brewer is the governor of Arizona.

Thank you Brother Bill for this clarification from the Govenor of Arizona.
 

Bryan

Registered User
Legal Immigration is fine.. no problem.. illegal immigration.. i have a problem with. Our borders need to be secure.. end of story.

What good does it do to screen passengers getting on airlines when we allow people to walk freely and un documented across the border?

Isn't that kind of akin to locking the door while leaving the windows wide open?
 

drapetomaniac

Premium Member
Premium Member
That's a crock. The people mentioned in the article you posted should have been grandfathered, especially if, as mentioned, the code "violations" existed before they bought their houses. The conditions may have even been within the code at the time of construction. Further, the article speaks of people here legally, not those who snuck across the border in violation of the law- major difference.

These people didn't follow an application process. They violated the law. They are illegals.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
Sorry, drape- no sale. From your own post: "At issue were homes with garages converted into living spaces without a permit and carports too close to the street, a violation of city code. The problem is that many of the garage conversions and carports were created 30 to 40 years ago, before many residents even owned their homes."

As I said before but you conveniently ignored, the violations of current codes occurred years ago, and very well may have been in compliance with the existing code at the time of construction. Additionally, the alleged violations (if they even were such) were committed by other than the current residents.

The two situations are not even remotely alike.
 
Last edited:

drapetomaniac

Premium Member
Premium Member
The two situations are not even remotely alike.

Sure they are - you just actually think through the full story of the one group. "Many of the garage conversions" were 30 years before. Not all of them. What of the others? I lived in that area and knew many people who made recent changes without a single permit. The entire of one group is condemned based on a partial story and the entire of another is condemned based on a partial story.

They are "directly" alike because they involve application processes and paper work - waiting in line and following the law. You just separated one group because you judged and excused the whole.
 

drapetomaniac

Premium Member
Premium Member
Bottom line if I'm stopped in Arizona (I have been) I have to prove who I am! Is there a problem with this?

Historically, the popular sentiment has been against a national id.

This man didn't have "enough" identification
"Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed."
http://www.azfamily.com/video/featu...ed-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html

This is the authority now in the hands of local police.
 

Traveling Man

Premium Member
This man didn't have "enough" identification
"Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed."

And if it were me, the same thing would happen. Trying to depict this situation as a miscarriage of justice is patently absurd. Try to board an overseas flight without the “proper paperwork” and see what happens…
As long as the laws state that we must have proper identification upon our persons the should be NO exceptions. And may G_D help those that try to pervert the laws of this land.
 

drapetomaniac

Premium Member
Premium Member
And if it were me, the same thing would happen. Trying to depict this situation as a miscarriage of justice is patently absurd. Try to board an overseas flight without the “proper paperwork” and see what happens…
As long as the laws state that we must have proper identification upon our persons the should be NO exceptions. And may G_D help those that try to pervert the laws of this land.

This wasn't an overseas flight. This was a native born US citizen driving in the US with nothing more than his driver's license and SS#. And he was handcuffed and detained.

How much identification should be required for US citizens to drive to avoid detention? You seem to be saying if Americans don't drive around with a full docket of identity papers, they should be detained and processed - else it's a perversion?
 

js4253

Premium Member
Premium Member
Bottom line if I'm stopped in Arizona (I have been) I have to prove who I am! Is there a problem with this?

Every time I have been stopped by an officer I have had to present identification to prove who I am. Should I have been screaming that my civil rights were violated. No. I am a law abiding person and expect to be asked for ID. It is standard operating procedure. The people protesting are trying to incite unrest. I wish there was a way to have them removed from our country, citizen or not.
 

Traveling Man

Premium Member
I’m not going to argue minutiae here, I’m speaking in generalities; hence the overseas flight instance.
After reading the specific link I’m sure there’s more to the story than, “I was profiledâ€. I’m sure it will come out in the wash. I’m sure if we try hard enough we all can find examples of victim-ology. Nonetheless there is no reason to change the law requiring individuals from carrying and producing identification upon request of authority. Elimination of such requirements would be a perversion of the law (to which I was referring).

I used to cross the border weekly, I have been stopped and detained several times. Does that mean I was “profiled� You bettcha. I have no problem with being “profiled†and or detained, there are and were specific reasons. Americans of all stripes are stopped and or detained everyday, do we whine? No!
 

drapetomaniac

Premium Member
Premium Member
I used to cross the border weekly, I have been stopped and detained several times. Does that mean I was “profiled� You bettcha. I have no problem with being “profiled†and or detained, there are and were specific reasons. Americans of all stripes are stopped and or detained everyday, do we whine? No!

Well, once more - this man was an American in the United States and was handcuffed and detained until his wife brought his birth certificate.

He wasn't crossing a border. He was in his own country driving.

Are you saying you were regularly handcuffed and detained until someone brought additional documentation on your identity?

I think the extreme majority of Americans don't expect to be handcuffed and carried away because they only have their license on them.
 

Traveling Man

Premium Member
Well, once more - this man was an American in the United States and was handcuffed and detained until his wife brought his birth certificate.

Once more: I’m not going to argue minutiae here.

Are you saying you were regularly handcuffed and detained until someone brought additional documentation on your identity?

Yes.


I think the extreme majority of Americans don't expect to be handcuffed and carried away because they only have their license on them.

Most Americans have never left their home state; most Americans are not Interstate/Intrastate truck drivers that require more than just a drivers license for documentation. Most Americans don’t hold passports but will have to in order to travel where it was not required not so long ago. And yes, if they are caught driving without a license they are handcuffed and carried away.

I had been refused entry into Ecuador because my non-expired passport (to them) was expired, one must have a valid passport that cannot expire within 6 months of one leaving Ecuador.

And yes, any foreign country can handcuff and detain (read imprisoned) anyone with proper documentation if the receiving employer has not filed the work permit 24 hours in advance of your arrival.

The United States has the most liberal immigration policy; all we as is for one to sign the guestbook. I personally think we need to implement a 100% reciprocal immigration policy for everyone who seeks to enter the United States. Has anyone read Mexico’s policy? How about the immigrants Mexico is holding in their jails from South and Central America? Read what the human rights organization say about how these individuals are being treated. After you weigh this treatment vs. ours I think the scales of justice tip just a little in the United States favour. If things are so bad here; why are these individuals coming here? They need to protest the way their home countries treat their own citizenry.

I asked a fellow coworker, who displays Columbian flags from his rear view mirror; do you display American flags on your mirror when you visit Columbia?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top