Calls to boycott Arizona are spreading like a virus

[jpccusa]

Wade, this one hits close to your home

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - The debate over immigration reform in Utah continues to be divided and heated. Support for Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank and Mayor Ralph Becker is tempered by negative and threatening emails to them both.


Burbank says, “Police Chiefs make unpopular decisions, I mean that’s part of the job.” Utahns who disagree with Burbank’s stand against an immigration law in Utah are expressing their opinions with nasty emails. One writes, “Get the heck out of here you are useless. In fact you’re worse than useless you are human trash.” Another disturbing email was signed with a noose.


But Burbank isn’t the only target for these hateful emails. Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker has gotten a fair share as well. One writes, “If Chris Burbank is not fired I will do everything in my power to see that you are a one term mayor and your political career ends here.”


Becker’s response to the emails: “When people suggest motives and intentions and hatred for people based on the color of their skin or their religion or their ethnicity, that’s not what this country is about and it is disturbing when you see that kind of lashing out.”


We asked if there’s a battle brewing with opposing viewpoints between the city and state. State lawmaker Stephen Sandstrom is pushing for an immigration law similar to Arizona’s. He says the only opposition is coming from Salt Lake City and that there is a small rift. He says, “On this particular issue we’re opposed, we’ll probably remain that way but I’m willing to speak in a nice, non-confrontational manner to discuss the issue of this.” Sandstrom points out that he has also received rotten emails from those who oppose what he’s trying to do.


Becker’s take on the rift? He says, “From a state level maybe they’re not quite as close to the kind of on-the-street reaction and level of participation that we have in the city.”

 

[wade]

I know there is strong talk of adopting the AZ law here in UT on a state level. It is being seriously discussed in both the Senate and the House. I think it will happen in the next session or even sooner if the Feds lawsuit gets shot down.

I don't think any public official, Mayor or Police Chief, is going to get too excited because of some negative emails. Look at all the talkers on this thread, from both sides. It's just talk.

 

[tsst]

[sarcasmfont]Maybe we can give this couple amnesty on their way back into the US?[/sarcasmfont]

:shrugs:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38315846/

 

[jpccusa]

Judge starts hearing on Arizona immigration law

PHOENIX — A federal judge heard arguments Thursday in a packed Phoenix courtroom over whether Arizona's tough new immigration law should take effect next week.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton was holding the hearing on whether the law should be put on hold and whether a lawsuit filed by civil rights groups and others challenging it should be dismissed.

About 30 lawyers were in court to represent defendants in the case. There also were about 150 spectators in the courtroom, many in a second-floor gallery.

Defendants include various county officials from throughout the state, most of whom sent lawyers to the hearing. Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever was there in person, however, sitting at the front of the courtroom.

Dever's county is on the Arizona-Mexico border and he knew a rancher who was killed in March on his ranch by a suspected illegal immigrant, possibly a scout for drug smugglers.

The killing of Robert Krentz in many ways set the stage for the new Arizona law to pass, with politicians calling for action amid border violence.

Supporters and opponents of the law demonstrated outside, gathering in prayer before the hearing started.

Sarah Fox, a 64-year-old Phoenix nurse, said the new law takes the country's economic problems out on immigrants, who she believes are being used as a scapegoat.

"It's morally wrong," she said. "I'm getting old and I don't have many years left to speak out against what is wrong."

Debbi MacNicol, a 55-year-old Phoenix psychiatric nurse who carried a gun on her hip and wore a T-shirt that read "Don't Tread on Me," said she supports the law because she fears Mexico's drug war will spill over into Arizona.

"It wasn't as much an issue until it started putting our lives at risk," she said.

Bolton was set to hold another hearing in the afternoon on the U.S. Justice Department's request for a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the immigration law.

The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to check a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally. It also bans people from blocking traffic when they seek or offer day-labor services on streets and prohibits illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places.

Since Gov. Jan Brewer signed the measure into law on April 23, it has inspired rallies in Arizona and elsewhere by advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Some opponents have advocated a tourism boycott of Arizona.

It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other U.S. states or their home countries and prompted seven challenges by the Justice Department, civil rights groups, two Arizona police officers, a Latino clergy group and a researcher from Washington.

Justice Department lawyers contend that local police shouldn't be allowed to enforce the law because, in part, it's disrupting the United States' relations with Mexico and other countries.

Attorneys for Brewer argue that the federal government based its challenge on misconceptions of what the law would do and that Washington's inadequate immigration enforcement has left the state with heavy costs for educating, incarcerating and providing health care for illegal immigrants.

In the challenge by civil rights groups, Brewer and other officials said the lawsuit should be thrown out because the groups don't allege a real threat of harm from enforcing the new law and instead base their claims on speculation.

The civil rights groups said their clients will suffer imminent harm, such as a social service organization that will have to divert resources from its programs to instead assist those affected by the new law.

Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ip-umjaTlHZI9WKNWKK-uFbqtM6wD9H47VT80

 

[jpccusa]

An update that does not surprise me.

A federal judge on Thursday expressed skepticism that a key part of a controversial Arizona law to control illegal immigration is constitutional.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton noted at a hearing that the U.S. Supreme Court has long barred states from creating their own immigrant registration systems. She said the Arizona measure's stipulation that makes a crime of failing to have immigration documents may violate that.

John Bouma, the attorney representing Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, tried to convince Bolton otherwise but eventually gave up. "I didn't have the feeling I persuaded you last week either," he said, alluding to a previous hearing.

Bolton did not issue a ruling.

The statements came as Bolton heard arguments from civil rights groups urging her to stop the law from going into effect July 29. The Obama administration has also sought an injunction. Its arguments will be heard later Thursday afternoon.

Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the ACLU, argued that the law, SB 1070, ignores the complexities of the federal immigration system to focus on trying to drive illegal immigrants from the state. "What we're facing here," he said, "is an attempt by a state to create an interrelated system of immigration laws that displace the federal" statutes.

Bouma said Arizona was only trying to enforce federal laws the U.S. government is ignoring. He urged Bolton not to enjoin the law.

"We're talking about an extraordinary remedy," he said, referring to the requests to halt SB 1070 from taking effect. "We're talking about imposing on the sovereignty of the state."

In addition to making a lack of immigration documents a state crime, the law requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they lawfully stop who they suspect are in the country illegally. Supporters argue that SB 1070 is needed to protect Arizona from crime spilling over from Mexico.

But civil rights groups contend that the measure will lead to racial profiling, and the Obama administration has said it is an unconstitutional attempt by a state to regulate immigration, which is a federal responsibility.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20100723,0,3498774.story

 

[salvadorian]

Just keep this in mind: if this type of law were inforced across the United States, those who look "suspicious" would have to legally carry their identification on them at all times. That means that, unless you are driving down the wrong side of the road frantically speaking a forgein language, those who appear to be of Hispanic origin are the only ones who will be targeted. And most people of Hispanic origin or who appear to be of such origins are not illegal immigrants. Yet their ethnicity would make them a target for unlawful and unneeded jail time.
A country or state where the color of your skin makes you a target for the police is sick, wrong, and a once prevelent part of American history. Racism is racism. Think about it: under this law, a person of hispanic origin (or who appears to be) could have the police called on them while they are at work on "suspicion of being an illegal immigrant". That is simply humiliation, cruelty, and uncalled for.
I am disgusted by the Arizona laws and those how support them. A little bit of empathy would be nice right about now.

 

[medusacoils]

There are 29 states in this country that have "Stop and Identify Yourself" laws. Basically, they require you to carry some for of ID. How is that any different from requiring proof of citizenship?

If a police officer stops you and asks you who you are, you are required to give your real name and address. If you make a false statement, then you can be charged with a misdemeanor. How is that any different?

Some laws are put in place for a reason. What if this law is overturned and the police stop a person, who is here illegally, but cannot do anything about it. Suspicion isn't enough. Then that person walks into a football stadium, baseball stadium, whatever and blows it up. Are you going to say then, that those officers should have done something?

[sarcasm]We should do away with border patrol! Lets get rid of immigration! Let's repeal everything that we don't agree with, because of our feelings -OR- because someone else's feelings may get hurt![/sarcasm]

I'm sorry, but I agree with this law. This country has made enough mistakes regarding people being here both legitimately and illegally. We have paid that price. Lets not do it again.

Wayne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_a..._.E2.80.9Cstop-and-identify.E2.80.9D_statutes

 

[Lovin2act]

Just keep this in mind: if this type of law were inforced across the United States, those who look "suspicious" would have to legally carry their identification on them at all times. That means that, unless you are driving down the wrong side of the road frantically speaking a forgein language, those who appear to be of Hispanic origin are the only ones who will be targeted. And most people of Hispanic origin or who appear to be of such origins are not illegal immigrants. Yet their ethnicity would make them a target for unlawful and unneeded jail time.
A country or state where the color of your skin makes you a target for the police is sick, wrong, and a once prevelent part of American history. Racism is racism. Think about it: under this law, a person of hispanic origin (or who appears to be) could have the police called on them while they are at work on "suspicion of being an illegal immigrant". That is simply humiliation, cruelty, and uncalled for.
I am disgusted by the Arizona laws and those how support them. A little bit of empathy would be nice right about now.

Well I am disgusted by what I just read in your post, I am disgusted by the story posted before it, and by all who think it's wrong to enforce the countries laws!!!!! If I get wind of any business, person, or candidate who supports boycotting Arizona and or anywhere else taking a stand against this barrage of illegal immigration and the laws set up to stop it, they lose my business, and support immediately. Children who are born of illegal immigrants in our country should not be made into citizens either!

 

[jpccusa]

There are 29 states in this country that have "Stop and Identify Yourself" laws. Basically, they require you to carry some for of ID. How is that any different from requiring proof of citizenship?

If a police officer stops you and asks you who you are, you are required to give your real name and address. If you make a false statement, then you can be charged with a misdemeanor. How is that any different?

Some laws are put in place for a reason. What if this law is overturned and the police stop a person, who is here illegally, but cannot do anything about it. Suspicion isn't enough. Then that person walks into a football stadium, baseball stadium, whatever and blows it up. Are you going to say then, that those officers should have done something?

[sarcasm]We should do away with border patrol! Lets get rid of immigration! Let's repeal everything that we don't agree with, because of our feelings -OR- because someone else's feelings may get hurt![/sarcasm]

I'm sorry, but I agree with this law. This country has made enough mistakes regarding people being here both legitimately and illegally. We have paid that price. Lets not do it again.

Wayne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_a..._.E2.80.9Cstop-and-identify.E2.80.9D_statutes

I don't know if AZ is a state where you are obligated to carry proof of ID ALL THE TIME. Should the law focus on everyone carrying an ID all the time instead of checking proof of legal status upon suspicion? That would solve most of the racial profiling claims. It would be a fair law. Maybe it is just verbiage, but still, important verbiage.

Well I am disgusted by what I just read in your post, I am disgusted by the story posted before it, and by all who think it's wrong to enforce the countries laws!!!!! If I get wind of any business, person, or candidate who supports boycotting Arizona and or anywhere else taking a stand against this barrage of illegal immigration and the laws set up to stop it, they lose my business, and support immediately. Children who are born of illegal immigrants in our country should not be made into citizens either!

There are ways to enforce this country's laws... doing something that may be unconstitutional is not it. Also, the constitution determines that every child born in the US is a citizen.

I tend to be wary of people who have problems with the constitution. I never know when they'll try to violate my rights, unconstitutionally.

Don't get me wrong, I sometimes wish the constitution could be applied just in certain cases (as when crazy bible-wavers picket soldiers' funerals, or when neo-nazis demonstrate in front of Jewish establishments), but unfortunately crazy people's rights have to be protected as well.

 

[Lovin2act]

Thankfully its right in line with what the federal law already is and with what they should have been enforcing all along.

Thing is that back when they wrote the constitution, we didn't have pregnant illegals coming over here just to drop a kid so they can be considered a US citizen. Yeah be wary, cause I will vote that to become law if it ever gets on a ballot.

And yeah Im with you there.

 

[Lovin2act]

jpccusa, my apologies for coming in with such strong verbiage. I didn't care at all about these issues in the past, but after all of the crying and carrying on from these boycotter's and complainer's, it has turned me into a very angry person and my blood boils in resentment towards them for it. What I paid no attention to in the past, will now be in the forefront of every decision I make here on out in life with where I spend money and with whom I support and even befriend. I have aaaalways always been one to just roll with "whatever" (lawful things of course) in almost everything in life (to each his own and what not) but this one thing has crossed the line big time in my mind. I guess their fight backfired, at least in my case. And I bet there are a few more out there just like me now as well.

 

[medusacoils]

I don't know if AZ is a state where you are obligated to carry proof of ID ALL THE TIME. Should the law focus on everyone carrying an ID all the time instead of checking proof of legal status upon suspicion? That would solve most of the racial profiling claims. It would be a fair law. Maybe it is just verbiage, but still, important verbiage.

Well, it's not a law to carry ID from what I can see, but it is a "stop and identify yourself" state. Since 2005 too. :shrugs:

13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

Wayne

 

[wstphal]

I don't know if AZ is a state where you are obligated to carry proof of ID ALL THE TIME. Should the law focus on everyone carrying an ID all the time instead of checking proof of legal status upon suspicion? That would solve most of the racial profiling claims. It would be a fair law. Maybe it is just verbiage, but still, important verbiage.

I have to agree. If everyone has to carry ID that includes proving their immigration/citizenship status at all times, then anyone caught without gets what they deserve for violating the law, and if that includes deportation because they aren't legal residents/citizens/visitors, sobeit.

I tend to be wary of people who have problems with the constitution. I never know when they'll try to violate my rights, unconstitutionally.

Agreed. But there IS a mechanism for amending the Constitution, and if enough citizens feel the "anchor baby" issue warrants an amendment, we can go that route. Honestly, the Founding Fathers hadn't imagined this issue or they might have set down the citizenship rules differently. Switzerland certainly has.

Honestly, I see some of both sides of this issue. On one side is the fact that states that share a border with Mexico have been inundated with people crossing the border without benefit of permission during the last 10 years (not so much so in the last 2 years, though) and are rightfully agitated that no one seems to be stopping the inundation. On the other side is my fundamental discomfort with picking people out on the basis of appearance factors that are beyond one's control, such as skin, hair or eye color. Profiling based on BEHAVIORS (such as going on websites in Arabic that cater to terrorists or having travelled to or from Afghanistan or Somali) is fair. Someone who doesn't want to get caught in the profile can avoid actions that fit the profile. Profiling based on genetics is a little different. How do I know that this dark haired person is "black Irish"? Or Latino? Or South Asian? Answer: I don't.

I don't know what the right answers are. I do think that Arizona is trying to force the Federal government to pay attention, and maybe that will lead to some better answers, if not the ideal ones.

 

[tsst]

... I tend to be wary of people who have problems with the constitution. I never know when they'll try to violate my rights, unconstitutionally. ...

Me too especially when they are sworn to uphold it then just ignore parts that are a political hot issue for them.

Article IV
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

I would say 15 million here illegally, with more coming in DAILY, constitutes a pretty large invasion.

 

[kathylove]

As much as I don't like the idea...

of having to carry a driver's license or similar ID, even when not driving, I guess I would not be against it as long as it could only be demanded IF I was stopped for some other reason first. If EVERYONE stopped for something else was required to show valid ID, and if anyone with a forged ID was required to show further proof, then I don't see how it could be claimed to target anyone in particular.

How about the other side of the coin? Why are providers of tax supported services not allowed (or required!) to see proof of legal status when signing people up for services such as school, medical benefits (of course we must provide emergency care whenever needed, but after a patient is stable, they could be deported if not legal), food stamps, welfare, or any other tax supported benefit you can think of. Those are things that one voluntarily signs up for. Without availability of those services, many of those those who are here illegally may decide to leave. I would probably exempt police protection (checking ID when reporting crime) because you want people to report crimes. But I suspect that illegals are already afraid to do that because of fear of discovery.

 

[jpccusa]

Markus, no need to apologize. I know this topic boils a lot of people's bloods (maybe that's why is called hot issue? ). The only thing I can advise (even though I am in no position to do so, but what the heck, it is free) is to not let that make you an angry person filled with resentment. That can lead to a bunch of other very ugly feelings towards other human beings.

Wayne, people has to give their real full name since 2005, but the "papers please" law says you have to show proof of legal status (valid ID, DL, or passport (with a valid VISA?)) when asked.

Tsst, I believe the word "invasion" meant something in the order of a declared war, but I may be wrong.

 

[jpccusa]

Kathy, dead on as usual.

 

[tsst]

... Tsst, I believe the word "invasion" meant something in the order of a declared war, but I may be wrong.

That may be a leap to assumption. I assume, since it doesn't say military invasion or act of war, that it means any invasion. I would back that assumption with the fedgov precedence set by it's very very very loose interpretation of the commerce clause! Though I am thoroughly sure that those in office will interpret it to benefit their sole agenda and not the US citizens they are suppose to represent. :shrugs:

 

[wade]

Though I am thoroughly sure that those in office will interpret it to benefit their sole agenda and not the US citizens they are suppose to represent. :shrugs:

Now that is an irrefutable fact.

 

[jpccusa]

More about the hearing...

PHOENIX -- A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement.

"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).

Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.

"How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"

At issue in Thursday's hearing, argued in a tan-colored "special proceedings" courtroom" inside the federal courthouse, was whether Bolton would grant a preliminary injunction to stop the law from taking effect while the federal lawsuit proceeds.

As dozens of protesters marched outside, the hearing marked the first round in the Obama administration's effort to stop the state's crackdown on illegal immigration. The tension in the courtroom reflected a broader national debate over what has become a political divisive issue: whether police should have the power to question people they suspect are in the United States illegally.

"The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power," Kneedler told a rapt courtroom. Brewer, whose fierce criticism of the federal lawsuit has helped her popularity at home, watched silently from the front row, drawing a "Good afternoon, Governor" from the judge.

Lawyers for Brewer argued with equal force that the legislation, scheduled to take effect July 29, is a legal expression of a sovereign state's right to secure its borders against a tide of illegal immigration. The federal government, the lawyers said, has failed to act.

"We keep hearing that we can't really do anything about these illegal aliens -- Arizona should just deal with it," said John J. Bouma, Arizona's lead attorney. "Well, the status quo is simply unacceptable."

The law, which Brewer signed in April, empowers police to question people they have a "reasonable suspicion" are illegal immigrants and to send them to federal authorities for possible deportation. President Obama has strongly condemned the law, and the Justice Department filed suit July 6, setting up an unusual clash between the federal government and a state over who should enforce the nation's immigration laws.

Bolton did not indicate how she might rule, saying only that she will take the matter "under advisement." But she did subject Justice Department lawyers to some pointed questions.

Kneedler responded to her query about why Arizona authorities don't have the right to be inhospitable to illegal immigrants by saying the law has given the state the power to enforce immigration law "in, frankly, an unprecedented and dramatic way."

"It is not for one of our states to be inhospitable in the way this statute does," Kneedler said, citing as his main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption."

Based on the Constitution's supremacy clause, it says federal law trumps state statutes. Because the federal government has "preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the government's lawsuit argues, the Arizona law must be struck down.

Bolton questioned key parts of that argument, especially relating to a section of the law that appears to require immigration-status checks if police stop someone for another law enforcement purpose and suspect the person is an illegal immigrant.

Kneedler said the conflict with federal law comes because the status checks are mandatory, which could lead to federal agencies being overwhelmed with deportation requests. Top officials at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose agents will handle most of the calls from Arizona authorities if the law takes effect, have said they will not necessarily respond to every call.

"There really is no flexibility," Kneedler said.

He added that the Arizona law might lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and is threatening to harm vital cooperation along the border with Mexican authorities, who have strongly condemned the law. "These are very concrete harms, very substantial foreign policy concerns," he said.

Bouma ridiculed the foreign policy concerns.

"Foreign outrage doesn't make the law preempted," he said. He accused the Obama administration of ignoring requests from Brewer and numerous other governors for more help in securing the border.

"You can't catch them if you don't know about them," he said. "And they don't want to know about them."

Bolton is hearing six other lawsuits filed against the Arizona law. A former Arizona state court judge, she was nominated for the federal bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, but legal observers say she is hard to pigeonhole ideologically.

Outside the gleaming glass-and-white iron courthouse, named for former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, an angry subtext reflected the divide over how to handle the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

Opponents of the Arizona law clasped hands, prayed and held signs condemning it.

"The law is racist. The police are harassing us because of our brown skin," said Marta Calderon, who sat next to a painting of the Virgin Mary affixed with a sign saying "Stop SB1070," as the immigration law is known.

Nearby, Brandy Baron waved an American flag and expressed her support for the law and her "disgust" at efforts to overturn it.

"I am amazed that the Justice Department would have the nerve to sue us for trying to get laws that are already on the books enforced," she said.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072201548.html?hpid=topnews