Posted on 06/28/2010 9:45:55 AM PDT by Nachum
I-70 is nowhere near Iowa.
The hysterical outcry from the MSM about SB1070 has painted a picture of the law that has many thinking of it as an omnipotent magic bullet that is practically self-executing!Talk about backfiring!! LOL!
Most criminals prefer to operate at night just as these two are. And YES, THEY ARE CRIMINALS.
So the law worked exactly as intended. That’s a novel delight.
So there is a lot of work in PA? What’s the unemployment rate there?
Mr. González, try something really cutting edge like following a group of illegal aliens in Mexico and reporting on what the Federales do to them...
So the good taxpayers of Pennsylvania will pony up $$$ to educate, medicate, and incarcerate still more illegals.
Oh please! Who was this fairy tale written for, and to what end?
Not only do they give all pertinent info on the first family who are travelling to Pennsylvania “where there is plenty of work” they add a detailed and tragic second young couple with a broken water heater. As if any writer these days would cough up this kind of info on anyone, unless they were a Republican.
And it’s written pretty poorly.
G-dlike Productions is somewhat suspect for leftist propaganda, isn’t it?
If these people are “undocumented” then how are they driving a vehicle? Licesnse Registration, Insurance???
Uh, we did that a long time ago here in Arizona. It was called Proposition 200 and it passed overwhelmingly. Problem is, the libs wouldn’t enforce it. Schools let them in anyway, services were given anyway, that is why we passed the law SB1070 because it makes it a crime which would make aiding and abetting a crime as well.
“fake papers” = FRAUD
“undocumented” = ILLEGAL
Since their “fake papers” got them driver's licenses, I will bet that they have Voted in past Elections. They probably have an Obama sticker on their car.
But soon after entering Utah on June 8, there is trouble. Their neighbors, also undocumented immigrants, are following them in a 20-year-old Jeep Cherokee with 183,000 miles. The Jeep’s engine is starting to overheat. The driver, Daniel Diaz, 22, pulls over in the darkness and pops the hood. The radiator hisses loudly. A cloud of steam billows out. Daniel thinks his car is overloaded with the belongings of his three passengers, Ruben Rosario, 33, Ruben’s wife, Betty Cabrera, 34, and the couple’s U.S.-born daughter, Alondra, who will be 2 in September.
The hell you say!
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
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
“Luis got his jobs using fake papers”.....
Breaking the law, you mean?
I think the thing to do is what another SW state did, which is simply require anybody who shows up for any government service, including registering their kids in school, to provide proof of citizenship. This is completely noncontroversial and very effective.”
Pretty sure that ‘other SW state” was also ARIZONA.
landscaping. Check out who is mowing the lawn and trimming the hedges. Go to Walmart after sunset. Lots of roaches.
I concur. This is total BS and lousy fiction. Good call on this one.
Seems that these folks tried to have a yard sale but didn't do well because... "Many of their neighbors were in the same situation, undocumented immigrants either leaving or planning to leave."
This might be the best news that I'll read today.
Let them go home. They knew what they were getting into.
It's a good thing for them that police only work during the day.
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.