Posted on 05/16/2010 4:05:23 PM PDT by callisto
Amid blind support for his left-wing ideology, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka forgot his claim to represent the “working man” and joined Wade Henderson, President of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, in a letter this week to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, calling for the immediate stop of federal cooperation with Arizona law enforcement officials or,
“be complicit in the racial profiling that lies at the heart of the Arizona law. [S.B. 1070]“
But Trumka’s ideology differs from his union members. Recognizing Trumka’s support for Amnesty as an opportunity to undermine employment opportunities for legal citizens while increasing the union’s voting power and dues, union members are loudly expressing their discontent with leadership on the AFL-CIO’s blog:
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren’t already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in “solely” considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: “Reasonable suspicion” has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures”). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of “reasonable suspicion:”
A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver’s license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.
The SB1070 provision in question reads:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment). Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725
What is scary is that Liberal RINOs who are Open Borders/Pro-Illegal/Anti-American....SUPPORT THE AFL-CIO LEADERSHIP on this issue.
Every RINO who supports Open Borders and Illegal Aliens are doing the bidding of the Unions......and, how the GOP could break up the unions by supporting Americans over Illegal Aliens.
When an Open Borders RINO claims that he is anti-Union....but supports Amnesty....the RINO is lying twice
And therein, lies the Obama administration's strong desire for amnesty. Populace control becomes much easier.
Well, in the mean time I do what I can as a lowly consumer to help. I avoid shopping at any union establishment whenever I can. I just wish I could do the same with government.
I think we should stop forcing employers to play collection agency for the unions through payroll deductions.
Lets see how successful the union is at passing the collection plate around on Friday for themselves. A disgruntled employee could become a tightfisted employee in a hurry.
Robert E. Lee had a similiar choice to make as well.
Arizona might as well just seceed from the Union if this nonsense continues too much longer.
Arizona is completely self-reliant and could survive on its own without any trade or commerce with the other 56 states.
Let’s play some country hard ball here.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka = Organized Crime.
Union members, take the elitist AFL-CIO Princes to task with this.
Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an “illegal alien” (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
Allow police to detain people where there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they’re illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what “reasonable suspicion” might entail)
Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren’t already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in “solely” considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: “Reasonable suspicion” has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures”). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of “reasonable suspicion:”
A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver’s license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.
The SB1070 provision in question reads:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment). Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725
You hit a home run with that post. You busted the myths about Arizona’s law like an overstuffed pinata.
The major problem of illegal aliens is the prolific hiring of them by US business in direct contravention of labor law - at the expense of US labor - and these dim bastards at the AFL-CIO are all for it. What idiots!
This is what I have been saying all along. The influx of illegal immigrants depresses the cost of labor (i.e. wages) for all workers. These union jobs can easily be replaced by lower-cost immigrants.
I think we should stop forcing employers to play collection agency for the unions through payroll deductions.
Lets see how successful the union is at passing the collection plate around on Friday for themselves. A disgruntled employee could become a tightfisted employee in a hurry.
_________________
That idea has a lot of merit, but I think there would be some resistance from employers.
All that collection activity on paydays and afterwards for arrears could be a distraction to the employers business at hand, whatever he hired the employees to do in the first place.
Many employers don’t even like the distraction of passing out paychecks nowadays preferring direct deposit compensation.
An incredibly encouraging article. What happens if the bosses can no longer deliver the votes?
I seldom fail to bring up a point going back to Ceasar Chavez and his unionization effort. Point first; Chavez saw illegal crews as competitition, undercutting his clout. Chavez could never have made the modest progress he did without the “grape boycott” from the liberal left.
Chavez would rat out a competing crew of “wetbacks”, a term Chavez was not too bashful to use, to the INS in a heartbeat. To Chavez, the distinction between legal/illegal was critical, he knew his LEGAL crews couldn’t compete.
If we are to honor Ceasar Chavez, let’s do it properly and make the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.
Trumka sees lots of new bodies to pay dues; union members see lots of new bodies to take their work. Being unionized will probably be the only way most newly legalized immigrants can get work. Problem is that now so few are unionized and they will probably be let go. I wonder if the newly legalized immigrants will form their own unions.
Ping!
March 2, 2010
(Former) SEIU Chief Andy Stern wants global government and state-led redistribution of wealth (video)
Former New Leftist Andrew Stern is the former President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Stern was trained in the tactics of radical activism at the Midwest Academy, which was formed by former Students for a Democratic Society members Paul and Heather Booth. This Academy was created to teach leftist community organizers how to promote social change and infiltrate the labor movement.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1830
Andy Stern leaves SEIU $85 million in debt, joins Obama’s Deficit Commission
Mr. Stern has claimed victories in helping pass health care legislation and getting President Obama elected, but his impact within his own organization shows gaping budget deficits and massive underfunding of pensions.
SEIU is $85 million in debt, down from its 2008 high of $102 million, and has been forced to lay off employees.
Obama Meeting to Legalize Illegal Aliens
To appease the influential La Raza movement, the commander-in-chief met privately with his staff this week to devise a measure that will grant United States citizenship to the country’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, according to a major newspaper that published interesting tidbits about the secret gathering.
Whose interest is Andy Stern looking our for?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.