Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
If Virginia moves forward with it I think it will catch like wild fire.
I think the implication is that it would become a "national/federal" law. Which I don't see any method by which it would anytime in the near future certainly (Obama would veto 1 and I don't think anything near what was passed in Arizona could get through the Senate, now or after 2010 or 2012 for 2).
It is possible that more states will pass harsh laws like this and enough of them to make this an "effective" national policy, but I don't see what purpose that will serve. Nor do I think it will be very common. It is clear that there are significant pluralities of the country, sometimes concentrated in certain states in a majority, that support tougher stances on immigration, but these are not even close to significant minorities of the relevant decision making bodies (CEOs/business owners, academics, and politicians for example).
If you expect anything to become a law, those are the people who are going to have to move to achieve it. They seem pretty happy with the way the law is now, or even to make it generally more open rather than more restrictive. Don't think you're getting one passed that way.
Prior to 1992 it was quite common for all law enforcement officers throughout this nation to detain and hold those suspected of being illegally in this country and turn them over to INS Border Patrol Agents. I know I did it for many years. Then in 1992 we got the word that it was ruled by some federal court – I think it was the ninth circuit court in San Francisco – that local police cannot enforce federal laws, and the U.S. Supreme court refused to hear the appeal thereby making the decision of the ninth circuit court case law which we all had to follow.
This has confused many a law enforcement officer (yours truly included) because we never actually arrested them, we just detained them and let INS make the determination as to their legality. Since I live in Arizona now I have read SB1070 in its entirety even again after the federal judge declared that by allowing local police to do just what we used to do for many years before 1992 would put an undue hardship on the federal government by doing what the border patrol is actually trained to do. Well as you can see, I am still confused. When I was working I had a case load that filled three seven drawer filing cabinets and that case load was never considered an undue hardship. Don't believe me? Check with your local police or sheriffs office and ask to interview the auto theft or burglary investigator and ask them how deep is their case load. Talk to the people who actually do the work, don't just look up statistics.
FYI – all sb1070 ever did was allow local law enforcement to detain those suspected of being here illegally for ICE to determine there actual status. Nothing more.
Some states will pass it because I guess they have nothing better to do. It will never become Federal though because the leading states would never agree to it, like New York, California, and Florida.
Most of the Arizona law is already federal law. If the Feds would just enforce the laws already on the books and link cooperatively with state and local law enforcement, a lot of the illegal problem would be under control. The Feds state that they are suing because they feel it 's an usurpation of their authority but the real reason is they don't like seeing something being done about something they don't want to do anything done about.
Leading states? Shirley you jest! (big PUN intended)
California = the largest "nanny" state that pays out the most in fraudulent welfare claims and a "sanctuary" illegal alien (I refuse to call them immigrants) state. I think that is where all the illegals in AZ are fleeing to.
New York = see California, above.
Florida = uh . . . What!?!
And just what and who do you think they are "leading"?
So question- detaining someone isn't the same as arresting them? Please explain this to me, because I've seen this stated elsewhere, and I have problems comprehending how detaining (holding someone as prisoner) and arresting them (holding someone as prisoner) is any different. ^.^