|
|
| This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand (614120) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (614120) | |
This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 31 13:38:25 2010 1. Increase from 24 hours to 96 hours the time that a jurisdiction can hold anyone arrested to verify status. If in a stop (traffic stop, home raid, or stop and frisk on the street), someone's status cannot be verified with state records, detention to this effect can happen.2. If the information cannot be verified within 96 hours because of insufficient identification or SSN, an ICE detainer would be placed until positive identification can be done. 3. Arraignment would not happen until the check is completed or 96 hours, whichever comes first. 4. Demand that the other 49 states and DC do likewise. This is a measure that would have teeth. Furthermore, given that the current Supreme Court is pro-law enforcement, I believe that it would pass muster, because the detention time would not be indefinite, but defined by law. |
|
|
| (614124) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 31 14:18:39 2010, in response to This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 31 13:38:25 2010. #1 - 4 days?Fellow hanging around Home Depot gets picked up. Sheriff asks what is your name and where were you born? Fellow responds, my name is Jose Gonzales and I was born in Los Angeles. Sheriff says, can I see ID? Fellow says, sorry, I don't have ID. Sheriff says, who can vouch for your being a citizen? Fellows says, right now, no one. My wife is visiting her parents in a rural area of Mexico. And you think you could persuade Justice Kennedy that it's OK to hold this guy for 4 days? (Assuming he hasn't been observed committing a crime - that would be different.) |
|
|
| (614125) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Mon May 31 14:20:23 2010, in response to This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 31 13:38:25 2010. I am against any immigration reform measure until the boycotts against Arizona are repealed. The boycotts will do MORE harm to the state than illegal immigrants are doing right now. |
|
|
| (614127) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon May 31 14:22:47 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by AlM on Mon May 31 14:18:39 2010. LOL. |
|
|
| (614151) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 31 15:16:35 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by AlM on Mon May 31 14:18:39 2010. Based on how Justice Kennedy has ruled in recent rulings involving law enforcement, such as Herring v. United States, I do, in fact, believe that it would pass muster with the courts.If not Kennedy, then Kagan. |
|
|
| (614154) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 31 15:25:49 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Mon May 31 14:20:23 2010. This is an enforcement measure, plain and simple. What Arizona did does NOTHING; my plan would do SOMETHING. |
|
|
| (614202) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Mon May 31 17:50:33 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 31 15:25:49 2010. Right, but Arizona did does NOTHING and is being boycotted by an increasing amount of groups. I was planning on moving back to the state, but with the boycotts, the state's economy is going to end up decimated. |
|
|
| (614203) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 31 17:55:51 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Mon May 31 17:50:33 2010. Arizona's response should be something with teeth. |
|
|
| (614207) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Mon May 31 18:02:08 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 31 17:55:51 2010. No. Arizona should repeal the existing law before it is forced to economically. If the boycotts pick up any more steam than they already are, the state is fucked. |
|
|
| (614408) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 1 01:37:59 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 31 15:25:49 2010. Cop: "What's your name?"AM: "My name is A Moreira." Cop: "Where are you from?" AM: "I am from New York". Cop: "Do you have a document proving citizenship or legal status" AM: "I don't usually carry my birth certificate or passport around with me on American soil. Is this a problem officer?" Cop: "Please step into the car." |
|
|
| (614409) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 1 01:41:09 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Mon May 31 18:02:08 2010. It's not just matter of overt boycotts. Those are actually few.It's the companies who would care less about the law but don't want any controversy. They will take their business, meetings and conventions elsewhere and nobody will ever know that they even considered AZ at one point. That's where the real economic damage comes from. When business drops 15-20%. |
|
|
| (614412) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 1 01:45:53 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 1 01:37:59 2010. what's that? |
|
|
| (614415) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 1 01:59:28 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 1 01:45:53 2010. It's AMoreira's immigration proposal. |
|
|
| (614418) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 1 02:02:56 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 1 01:45:53 2010. That can be fixed by having Social Security numbers expiring. Permanent residents and citizens would renew every 10 years, and nonpermanent residents would have numbers that expire when legal authorization to stay ends.Law enforcement can access state records and the SSNs used to get licenses, and then check them with the SSA in Baltimore. |
|
|
| (614419) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 1 02:03:58 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 1 02:02:56 2010. That would lead to unnecessary costs and annoyance. |
|
|
| (614421) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 1 02:05:16 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 1 02:02:56 2010. That can be fixed by having Social Security numbers expiring. Permanent residents and citizens would renew every 10 years, and nonpermanent residents would have numbers that expire when legal authorization to stay ends.Such a card/number would need to have a picture to be verifiable. That = National ID Card. |
|
|
| (614424) | |
Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 1 02:09:17 2010, in response to Re: This immigration measure is one that would have teeth, but Brewer would not demand, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 1 01:59:28 2010. oh. i thought you were implying that a scenario like that could happen in Arizona. |
|
|