Supreme Court case says AZ law isn't that strict

[ndpruitt03]

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423/

According to that case in the case any investigation you have to show papers if you are illegal. The AZ law isn't that strict. All you need is a driver's license and you are free.

And now according to some reports the Feds are considering not process illegals. They don't want to follow their own damn laws.

[Leroy Lizard]

Unanimous too.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Not like the AZ law.

They had a search warrant. Of course they can check immigration status. that's not new.

AZ law opens to the door to witnesses, victims of a crime, or individuals in the proximity of a lawful event. search warrant not needed.

[NormanPride]

The Court further held that the officers' questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not need to have reasonable suspicion to question Mena. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a seizure.

Nothing related to the search warrant there. The warrant was in relation to the handcuffs being used, not the query about immigration status.

[ndpruitt03]

Not like the AZ law.

They had a search warrant. Of course they can check immigration status. that's not new.

AZ law opens to the door to witnesses, victims of a crime, or individuals in the proximity of a lawful event. search warrant not needed.

The search warrant had nothing to do with immigration status. Basically they profiled the person because they had a Hispanic name and looked darker. According to federal law it is okay to profile. According to the AZ law it is illegal to profile.

[Harry Beanbag]

Profiling works great as long as you don't admit to it.

[Flagstaffsooner]

http://pictopia.com/perl/get_image?provider_id=240&size=550x550_mb&ptp_photo_id=252469


I profile this guy as a dickhead.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Nothing related to the search warrant there. The warrant was in relation to the handcuffs being used, not the query about immigration status.

She was detained because of the search warrant. Without the search warrant she is not detained.

[Leroy Lizard]

Search warrants must prescribe specifically what the agents are searching for. Unless the search warrant specifically mentioned the need to determine the status of her residency, then the search warrant is irrelevant.

[stoopified]

Somewhat surprised but pleased.

[StoopTroup]

I've got a Drivers License, a Social Security Card, A Voter ID card and a Passport. I suggest all of you get one of each ASAP.

[StoopTroup]

Not like the AZ law.

They had a search warrant. Of course they can check immigration status. that's not new.

AZ law opens to the door to witnesses, victims of a crime, or individuals in the proximity of a lawful event. search warrant not needed.

If you have a Drivers License or an Official Form of Identification there's no reason to worry now is there?

You need to quit listening to propaganda and realize that it's not wrong for U.S. Citizens to expect each other to follow the law...it's not wrong of U.S. Citizens to expect the laws be enforced.

It's not even wrong for any human on this planet to voice an opinion about laws not only in this Country...but in other Countries. I'd say even folks who are here illegally have it really good here compared to what they would face in other parts of the World. It's why your outrage or concerns continue to fall on deaf ears.

Just the fact that State Law and Federal Law can't even agree should ease your concerns that people are being treated unfairly. It's an easy fix. Become a Citizen and stay. Pay Taxes like the rest of us too.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Search warrants must prescribe specifically what the agents are searching for. Unless the search warrant specifically mentioned the need to determine the status of her residency, then the search warrant is irrelevant.

Isn't the search warrant what justified detainment?

So agents can just randomly pull people off the street and question about immigration status? My understanding is, if they do, I don't have to answer.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

If you have a Drivers License or an Official Form of Identification there's no reason to worry now is there?


Some do worry that you can sit in detention for a few hours while your "papers" are being checked to make sure they're legit. Eastern European bureaucracy.

[delhalew]

Some do worry that you can sit in detention for a few hours while your "papers" are being checked to make sure they're legit. Eastern European bureaucracy.

Have you still not read this ****ing thing? You guys may as well be trying to talk to an ashtray.

[ndpruitt03]

Some do worry that you can sit in detention for a few hours while your "papers" are being checked to make sure they're legit. Eastern European bureaucracy.

LOL

You just want to believe in the far left propaganda that the right wants less rights for everyone, fine you just aren't listening to the other side and your side is right. The thing is all the left is doing is criticizing the right and they have no real substance in this entire argument. Every poll out there is VASTLY in favor of the AZ law. And if it's brought to court it'll win easily because the current federal law shown above.

[Leroy Lizard]

Isn't the search warrant what justified detainment?

So agents can just randomly pull people off the street and question about immigration status? My understanding is, if they do, I don't have to answer.

The detainment is not in question. Who cares about that? What matters here was their decision to question her legal residency. The search warrant is irrelevant because it didn't grant the agents the right to investigate her legal residency. The Supreme Court basically said that the agents didn't need one.

At least, that is how I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[AlbqSooner]

Isn't the search warrant what justified detainment?

So agents can just randomly pull people off the street and question about immigration status? My understanding is, if they do, I don't have to answer.

You are not understanding correctly as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. This case specifically holds that any officer may question you without any suspicion of wrongdoing on your part, so long as they merely ask for identification and perhaps permission to search. In asking for identification, they may inquire as to immigration status as well. Because the rulings of the Supreme Court are - well - Supreme, this is the case everywhere in the United States with one exception. Arizona. WHY? Because Arizona has a statute which clearly states that prior to inquiring about immigration status an officer must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally in the U.S.

Read it for yourself:

The Court of Appeals also determined that the officers violated Mena's Fourth Amendment rights by questioning her about her immigration status during the detention. 332 F.3d, at 1264-1266. This holding, it appears, was premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question Mena concerning her immigration status because the questioning 101*101 constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event. But the premise is faulty. We have "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 212 (1984). "[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage." Bostick, supra, at 434-435 (citations omitted). As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.

For Calderon to single out Arizona for criticism was disingenuous at best. For members of Congress and high level Administration officials to give him a standing ovation for doing so was proof that those Arse Wholes have no idea what the law is and ain't the least bit curious.

[Leroy Lizard]

I sometimes wonder if Congressmen do anything at all.

How hard can this be? It seems as if they did nothing but hang out on a message board all night they would learn more than they currently do.

And my home state isn't exactly blameless either. Why didn't our state lawmakers research the law and realize that a new law was not necessary; just enforce the existing law? So if you're Arizona, what do you do now? Repeal your own law to fall back on the much tougher Supreme law?

And how stupid were Mena's lawyers? Shouldn't you do a case analysis first before embarrassing yourself in front of the Supreme Court?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

You are not understanding correctly as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. This case specifically holds that any officer may question you without any suspicion of wrongdoing on your part, so long as they merely ask for identification and perhaps permission to search. In asking for identification, they may inquire as to immigration status as well. Because the rulings of the Supreme Court are - well - Supreme, this is the case everywhere in the United States with one exception. Arizona. WHY? Because Arizona has a statute which clearly states that prior to inquiring about immigration status an officer must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally in the U.S.

Read it for yourself:

The Court of Appeals also determined that the officers violated Mena's Fourth Amendment rights by questioning her about her immigration status during the detention. 332 F.3d, at 1264-1266. This holding, it appears, was premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question Mena concerning her immigration status because the questioning 101*101 constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event. But the premise is faulty. We have "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 212 (1984). "[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage." Bostick, supra, at 434-435 (citations omitted). As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.

.

Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendment justification for inquiring about Mena’s immigration status was required. Cf. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. ___ , ___ (slip op., at 2—4). Pp. 7—8.

[ndpruitt03]

Okay with the AZ law you it has to be through investigation that they "ask for your papers" as some have put it. So if you are hispanic and get caught in a traffic accident unless you don't have a valid driver's license there's nothing to worry about. If you are in some other incident and you have other valid ID, nothing to worry about unless they find out it is fake or not valid and they find out about it.. Oh btw what do you think happens if you don't have a valid driver's license and are driving? Race won't matter you are probably getting arrested.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Is the difference in existing SCoTUS decisions and Arizona statute the enforcement entity enabled by the decision and statute?

Honest question here.

Tulsa County Sheriff's Office had to jump through tons of hoops to be able to act and enforce federal law under the jurisdiction of ICE. Which leads me to believe that regardless of the SCoTUS ruling, the ruling in and of itself doesn't enable state, county, or local jurisdictions to enforce federal law. If this isn't right, then by all means help a fella out. But at least from what little I've seen on the issue, at a minimum County and Local jurisdictions are restricted from such.

Thoughts?

[AlbqSooner]

You have hit on the issue that will ultimately decide the validity of the AZ law IMHO. Does the Federal law mean that the Feds have 'pre-empted' the field of immigration? If so, then AZ, nor any other state may not validly enact legistlation in that arena.

However, the hue and cry has been that AZ is allowing a Nazi-like stopping of individuals to ask for "Papers, please". The Muehller case makes it clear that the law in the U.S. is that this is not prohibited. The AZ statute makes it equally clear that the law in AZ does prohibit that, absent reasonable suspicions that the individual is here illegally.

[Leroy Lizard]

Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendment justification for inquiring about Mena’s immigration status was required. Cf. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. ___ , ___ (slip op., at 2—4). Pp. 7—8.

You keep bringing this up but I don't see the relevance to the issue.

[delhalew]

You keep bringing this up but I don't see the relevance to the issue.

He's trying to say in AZ the original detention won't be lawful, because he is engaging in misinformation and acting as though he is too stupid to understand that the AZ law actually goes so far as to offer even more protections from discrimination than the federal law.

[Leroy Lizard]

Oh. Thanks for clarifying that up.

[1890MilesToNorman]

[url]And now according to some reports the Feds are considering not process illegals. They don't want to follow their own damn laws.

Let Arizona process them! Are you paying tention Flag. :D

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leroy Lizard View Post
You keep bringing this up but I don't see the relevance to the issue.


He's trying to say in AZ the original detention won't be lawful, because he is engaging in misinformation and acting as though he is too stupid to understand that the AZ law actually goes so far as to offer even more protections from discrimination than the federal law.

Incorrect. I have no idea if the AZ law will hold up. My point is this supreme court case isn't that relevant to the AZ law. The officers questioned her about immigration status while she was under lawful detention. That is nothing new. BFD.

What is different about the new AZ law:

1. It makes illegal presence a state crime, while illegal presence is a civil not criminal violation.

2. It compels officers to inquire about legality of presence if they suspect the person's presence is illegal.

3. The AZ legislature tweaked it a couple of times and it is still not clear to me who must be checked during a lawful event.

For example, if an officer stops a car for a faulty tail light, must he check the IDs of all passengers in the car if he suspect they may be illegally present?

If they don't have proper ID how long will they be detained until ICE can verified whether or not they are illegally present? I know in the California foothills it may take a week for ICE to show up.

If the person presents an ID but the officer thinks the picture doesn't look like him, how long can he detain him to check and verify?

Does the law apply to victims of and witnesses to crimes? Or to anyone in the proximity of an lawful event in which an officer is involved?

The AZ law explicitly mentions it applying to violations of city ordinances. If a household is violation a lawn watering ordinance, will an officer be able to check the immigration status of all household members?

With illegal presence now a state crime, will violators actually be processed in state criminal courts instead of, or in addition to, federal civil court? Will the suspect have a trial-by-jury and serve time if convicted before being turned over to the feds?

[Leroy Lizard]

Incorrect. I have no idea if the AZ law will hold up. My point is this supreme court case isn't that relevant to the AZ law. The officers questioned her about immigration status while she was under lawful detention. That is nothing new. BFD.

What is different about the new AZ law:

1. It makes illegal presence a state crime, while illegal presence is a civil not criminal violation.

Are you referring to mere trespassing?

[Harry Beanbag]

Incorrect. I have no idea if the AZ law will hold up. My point is this supreme court case isn't that relevant to the AZ law. The officers questioned her about immigration status while she was under lawful detention. That is nothing new. BFD.

What is different about the new AZ law:

1. It makes illegal presence a state crime, while illegal presence is a civil not criminal violation.

2. It compels officers to inquire about legality of presence if they suspect the person's presence is illegal.

3. The AZ legislature tweaked it a couple of times and it is still not clear to me who must be checked during a lawful event.

For example, if an officer stops a car for a faulty tail light, must he check the IDs of all passengers in the car if he suspect they may be illegally present?

If they don't have proper ID how long will they be detained until ICE can verified whether or not they are illegally present? I know in the California foothills it may take a week for ICE to show up.

If the person presents an ID but the officer thinks the picture doesn't look like him, how long can he detain him to check and verify?

Does the law apply to victims of and witnesses to crimes? Or to anyone in the proximity of an lawful event in which an officer is involved?

The AZ law explicitly mentions it applying to violations of city ordinances. If a household is violation a lawn watering ordinance, will an officer be able to check the immigration status of all household members?

With illegal presence now a state crime, will violators actually be processed in state criminal courts instead of, or in addition to, federal civil court? Will the suspect have a trial-by-jury and serve time if convicted before being turned over to the feds?


I don't really care who it applies too. The officers can stop everyone and ask as far as I'm concerned. Let's be honest, you support breaking immigration laws and want to protect the criminals that do it. I want them the **** out of here.

We've been over this countless times, if the Federal government doesn't enforce their own laws, the states are going to start. The Obama appointed dildo in charge of ICE just announced they still won't be enforcing the law, especially in Arizona. :rolleyes:

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't really care who it applies too. The officers can stop everyone and ask as far as I'm concerned. Let's be honest, you support breaking immigration laws and want to protect the criminals that do it because they can bear children who vote Democrat.

FIFY

[SanJoaquinSooner]

LOL

You just want to believe in the far left propaganda that the right wants less rights for everyone, fine you just aren't listening to the other side and your side is right. The thing is all the left is doing is criticizing the right and they have no real substance in this entire argument. Every poll out there is VASTLY in favor of the AZ law. And if it's brought to court it'll win easily because the current federal law shown above.

Sorry, but the right needs to accept its share of the blame. There are 325 legal ports of entry into the U.S. and the "enforcement-only, no worker visa reform" crowd has led to a high concentration of illegals in Arizona, and more generally a black market of labor.

Maybe you should blame the right for defeating Jimmy Carter in 1980. Maybe if he had been re-elected we would have continued a dreary malaise-fed economy. Instead we got Reagan's morning-in-America booming economy to created a million net new jobs per year that the domestic workforce couldn't sustain by itself. And it was continued through Clinton's terms with the high tech boom. The economic boom lasted 20 years.

Anyone with a high school diploma was making enough money to contemplate the cost of boat maintenance.

For 20 years the economy had an insatiable demand for inexpensive labor and unemployment was only for those who didn't want to work. The economy easily absorbed 500,000 new workers each year from other countries, even though the current H2B visa had a cap of about 60,000. ...and a red tape nightmare that would make the politburo proud.

And now tight borders makes them less likely to go home during a recession, than if they had a worker visa to assure them of an opportunity to return when the economy picks up.

The truth is, Arizona would not have its current problems if a decent immigration reform with an overhaul of worker and tourist visas laws had been accomplished.

[Leroy Lizard]

The truth is, Arizona would not have its current problems if a decent immigration reform with an overhaul of worker and tourist visas laws had been accomplished.

We had eight years of Clinton and you want to blame the Right?

The law is the law. Until you change the law, you can't blame a state for wanting to enforce it.

BTW, it is not true that only the Right opposes worker/tourist visas. Many on the Left don't like the idea either because they consider it exploitation. (In reality, they want the workers to be able to stay long-term for political reasons.)

I would not necessarily oppose a six-month visa on the condition that only workers (not family members) are allowed to enter. They can come in for six months and not allowed to reenter for another six months. No one having a communicable disease can enter. No pregnant women either.

[StoopTroup]

So Juan...if your afraid of the law being enforced....vote Democratic. :D

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Are you referring to mere trespassing?

I'm saying most deportation hearings are processed through civil court, not criminal court.

I'm not talking about drug smuggler cases. Of course they are processed through criminal courts. Go ahead and hang them and all of you dope fiends who buy the stuff. Or if a bank robber is deported after serving time and returns to the U.S., he's likely processed in criminal court.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

We had eight years of Clinton and you want to blame the Right?


Good point. Clinton had the economy humming so well, anyone with a second grade education could find all the jobs he wanted - English speaker or not.

Not a sniff of a recession during his eight years.

Clinton was a modern day liberal republican.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

BTW, it is not true that only the Right opposes worker/tourist visas. Many on the Left don't like the idea either because they consider it exploitation. (In reality, they want the workers to be able to stay long-term for political reasons.)



This is true. The DLC democrats, in general, tended to be more supportive of immigration reform. While the more liberal wing, often tied to the anti-free trade crowd, did not. I'm not blaming only the right.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I don't really care who it applies too. The officers can stop everyone and ask as far as I'm concerned. Let's be honest, you support breaking immigration laws and want to protect the criminals that do it. I want them the **** out of here.



I don't support breaking the laws, I support changing the laws. It's similar to someone who wanted to repeal prohibition. Wanting to repeal prohibition doesn't mean one supports breaking laws. Actually, just the opposite. It means one supports changing the laws to coincide with the realities of the marketplace - so that laws are not routinely broken.

When I lived in Norman back in the 80s, there were probably 50 establishments that served liquor-by-the-drink illegally. And all the customers who went to those restaurants and bars and bought drinks were breaking the law. It was much better to change the law to make it legal. I support the legal consumption of alcohol over illegal consumption (sorry Vet). Thankfully the law was changed and all 50 establishments and their customers were given amnesty.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I don't really care who it applies too. The officers can stop everyone and ask as far as I'm concerned.

OK, Harry, let's go with that. So they stop everyone.

Now suppose you have a bike rider in the park on a Friday night and the officer asks for his ID and all he has is a library card. The officer asks if he has a green card and the guy says "I don't need no f**king green card, I'm a U.S. citizen."

Under the new AZ law do you have any idea how long the bike rider can be detained until ICE confirms legal presence?

[Frozen Sooner]

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423/

According to that case in the case any investigation you have to show papers if you are illegal. The AZ law isn't that strict. All you need is a driver's license and you are free.

And now according to some reports the Feds are considering not process illegals. They don't want to follow their own damn laws.

I'm going to be completely clear here: I have no issues 4th Amendment-wise with SB1070 as it is currently enacted. Now that the state has defined "legal contact" narrowly, any personal liberties qualms I had are gone. As others have pointed out, there's possibly an Article I problem with the law.

However, claiming that Mueler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) is good precedent for the constitutionality of SB 1070 is ridiculous.

The Fourth Amendment objections to SB 1070 generally center around the possibility that "legal contact" would be broadly defined to include situations where the questioned person's liberty interests were not already constrained.

The Mueler case narrowly holds that a person whose liberty interests are already constrained may not assert a Fourth Amendment claim against interrogation regarding their immigration status when another basis for that constraint exists. Id. at 101.

Further, key to the holding was that Mena's detention was not extended at all by the questioning. Id. at 101. Under SB 1070, the possibility is very strong that the detention would be extended by the questioning, and the Mueler Court strongly implies that if that were the case, an independent basis for the questioning would then be needed.

Basically, this case really isn't on point.

[ndpruitt03]

So why does anyone have to show ID for any situation? If you get caught driving without a valid driver's license isn't that on point? Also why show ID for about a million other things most people have to show ID in a daily life. If a regular citizen has to go through the trouble of showing ID why can't an illegal? The answer is because they are doing something illegal.

[Frozen Sooner]

So why does anyone have to show ID for any situation? If you get caught driving without a valid driver's license isn't that on point? Also why show ID for about a million other things most people have to show ID in a daily life. If a regular citizen has to go through the trouble of showing ID why can't an illegal? The answer is because they are doing something illegal.

What in the **** are you even talking about at this point?

Mena wasn't driving without a valid driver license. She was detained during a legal search of a residence for weapons. During that detention, she was questioned about her residency status. The Court found that a simple question about residency status was not a Fourth Amendment violation because Mena's original detention was proper and the question did not further impinge on her liberty by extending the duration of her detention. The case itself is not on point to counter the objection that detaining someone for a period of time not justified by a traffic stop or arrest violates their Fourth Amendment rights, and the dicta in the case would seem to say that it would. Personally, in my estimation and in keeping with Terry and its progeny, I would say that a "reasonable suspicion" standard for inquiry into whether a crime is being committed probably passes muster for the Fourth Amendment. Mena doesn't provide any support for that, though.

As for your contention that SB1070 is simply about showing ID, my understanding of the bill is that simply showing a valid state-issued ID will not be sufficient if an officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is here illegally when the state of issue does not require proof of legal residency. Stated more simply, the only ID that will end a 1070 inquiry is an ID which requires proof of legal residency. Proof of citizenship<>Identification.

[JLEW1818]

So why does anyone have to show ID for any situation? If you get caught driving without a valid driver's license isn't that on point? Also why show ID for about a million other things most people have to show ID in a daily life. If a regular citizen has to go through the trouble of showing ID why can't an illegal? The answer is because they are doing something illegal.

illegals are future democrat voters!

[Harry Beanbag]

I don't support breaking the laws, I support changing the laws. It's similar to someone who wanted to repeal prohibition. Wanting to repeal prohibition doesn't mean one supports breaking laws. Actually, just the opposite. It means one supports changing the laws to coincide with the realities of the marketplace - so that laws are not routinely broken.

When I lived in Norman back in the 80s, there were probably 50 establishments that served liquor-by-the-drink illegally. And all the customers who went to those restaurants and bars and bought drinks were breaking the law. It was much better to change the law to make it legal. I support the legal consumption of alcohol over illegal consumption (sorry Vet). Thankfully the law was changed and all 50 establishments and their customers were given amnesty.

Yeah, we've heard this argument from you ad nauseum. It's not a winner.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Yeah, we've heard this argument from you ad nauseum. It's not a winner.Well, I'm accused by you of being in favor of illegal immigration ad nauseum. I'm not.

I'm in favor of legal free markets. You're in favor of quotas.

A citizen should have the right to hire the most qualified individual for a job.

[Harry Beanbag]

Well, I'm accused by you of being in favor of illegal immigration ad nauseum. I'm not.

Only me?



I'm in favor of legal free markets. You're in favor of quotas.

I'm in favor of American citizens.



A citizen should have the right to hire the most qualified individual for a job.

Anybody can mow a lawn or make a burrito. If you're talking about actual educated and skilled individuals, then there is a legal means for them to come here. Oh you mean going through the legal paperwork isn't fast enough for your liking? Tough ****.

[Sooner Eclipse]

A citizen should have the right to hire the most qualified citizen for a job.

fixed

[JLEW1818]

burritos lol

[SanJoaquinSooner]

fixed

Well, Eclipse, so join the bandwagon favoring affirmative action for citizens. If you roll out of your mom's vagina and hit U.S. soil, you get hiring preference.



Harry says: Anybody can mow a lawn or make a burrito.

Let me guess Harry, you've a gov't bureaucrat in charge of placing welfare moms into the workforce. Yeah, they last right up until they qualify for unemployment and then try to get fired.

Some "unskilled" workers are much more productive than others.

But maybe I'm wrong Harry, maybe you're a small business owner and you've found it doesn't matter who you hire - they all produce the same results. They all show up for work on time with equal frequency, right?

[Leroy Lizard]

If you roll out of your mom's vagina and hit U.S. soil and you get hiring preference.

That's another law we need to change.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

If you're talking about actual educated and skilled individuals, then there is a legal means for them to come here. Oh you mean going through the legal paperwork isn't fast enough for your liking? Tough ****.

Yes, I've hired people under H1B visas. Thankfully in higher ed we have a free market of labor. If we interview a U.S. citizen and a non-U.S. citizen we choose the most qualified. Period. And WE determine who is most qualified, not the gov't.

The paperwork is a hassle, but paperwork isn't the issue in some categories. For example, if a U.S. citizen wishes to hire her sister from Mexico as a nanny for her children, doing paperwork won't do you any good. The legal path isn't there.

Now I suppose "anybody" can be a nanny, but some might argue that one's own flesh and blood might be more qualified than others for reasons gov't bureaucrats might not understand.

[JLEW1818]

without welfare we have no democrat party. LOL

[Leroy Lizard]

Yes, I've hired people under H1B visas. Thankfully in higher ed we have a free market of labor. If we interview a U.S. citizen and a non-U.S. citizen we choose the most qualified. Period. And WE determine who is most qualified, not the gov't.

The paperwork is a hassle, but paperwork isn't the issue in some categories. For example, if a U.S. citizen wishes to hire her sister from Mexico as a nanny for her children, doing paperwork won't do you any good. The legal path isn't there.

Now I suppose "anybody" can be a nanny, but some might argue that one's own flesh and blood might be more qualified than others for reasons gov't bureaucrats might not understand.

A little contrived is your example, is it not?

Are you advocating that her sister be allowed to break into our country illegally so that she can provide her nanny services?

[JLEW1818]

taco bobs

[SanJoaquinSooner]

A little contrived is your example, is it not?

Are you advocating that her sister be allowed to break into our country illegally so that she can provide her nanny services?

No. I'm suggesting to allow her in with a visa.

[JLEW1818]

and then she can have 4 babies of her own here. get dat cash!!!

[Leroy Lizard]

And those votes!

[delhalew]

Three cheers for anchor babies!

[olevetonahill]

Well, I'm accused by you of being in favor of illegal immigration ad nauseum. I'm not.

I'm in favor of legal free markets. You're in favor of quotas.

A citizen should have the right to hire the most qualified individual for a job.

Hey jaun Ill go along with the Bolded part , But,(Ya knew there was a BUT coming )
Say Im making taco widgets and the Best and Most qualified fer the Job opening I have is a Mexican national ok ?

Now should I Hire a coyote to smuggle him/her across the border? or should I work to get him/her a work visa and bring em over legally ? :pop:

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Hey jaun Ill go along with the Bolded part , But,(Ya knew there was a BUT coming )
Say Im making taco widgets and the Best and Most qualified fer the Job opening I have is a Mexican national ok ?

Now should I Hire a coyote to smuggle him/her across the border? or should I work to get him/her a work visa and bring em over legally ? :pop:

I'm guessing you'd have a difficult time getting a visa for him/her.

If a chef has world class expertise then it's certainly possible.

Maybe if you're running a seasonal bed and breakfast place in little dixie and when you advertise for a cook specializing in Oaxacan moles no U.S. citizen applies ... then you can maybe use a H2B visa for a temporary employee (one year max). Only 60,000 available each year and they run out. And you gotta provide housing and daily transportation for the cook. No problem providing the required 3 meals a day since its a restaurant. That's a little harder if the job is roofing houses.

But for a standard taqueria, I think you'll be sh*t-out-of-luck getting a visa for a Mexican national. You'll get turned down.

As far as doing it through a coyote, I'm not familiar with employers getting their hands dirty (probably happens though). The employer says to Jose', "if you've got a sister who can cook mole and tamales, and she has a social security number and a matching ID, then I've got a job for her." Then it's up to Jose' to get his sister here and get the SSN and the ID. If Jose' has money he can arrange the smuggling and can get the ID. That way, the employer has his a$$ covered via I9 employment verification.

I don't recommend doing business with a coyote.

[olevetonahill]

I'm guessing you'd have a difficult time getting a visa for him/her.

If a chef has world class expertise then it's certainly possible.

Maybe if you're running a seasonal bed and breakfast place in little dixie and when you advertise for a cook specializing in Oaxacan moles no U.S. citizen applies ... then you can maybe use a H2B visa for a temporary employee (one year max). Only 60,000 available each year and they run out. And you gotta provide housing and daily transportation for the cook. No problem providing the required 3 meals a day since its a restaurant. That's a little harder if the job is roofing houses.

But for a standard taqueria, I think you'll be sh*t-out-of-luck getting a visa for a Mexican national.

As far as doing it through a coyote, I'm not familiar with employers getting their hands dirty. The employer says to Jose', "if you've got a sister who can cook mole and tamales, and she has a social security number and a matching ID, then I've got a job for her." Then it's up to Jose' to get his sister here and get the SSN and the ID. If Jose' has money he can arrange the smuggling and can get the ID. That way, the employer has his a$$ covered via I9 employment verification.

I don't recommend doing business with a coyote.

How bout I just hire the NEXT most qualified who is already a LEGAL citizen?
Then I aint breakin the Law :P

[ndpruitt03]

I don't know if I really care for the attitude of people doing nothing really wrong so let's just let them do this. It's the same thing in many facets in life. Like drugs, alcohol, sex. Nobody is responsible for things that they do wrong anymore. To me if you are here illegally you ARE doing something wrong. You pay the consequences. We need to start treating illegals like they aren't welcome here and either get them to be legal or kick them out. This problem can't just be ignored by both sides anymore.

[olevetonahill]

I don't know if I really care for the attitude of people doing nothing really wrong so let's just let them do this. It's the same thing in many facets in life. Like drugs, alcohol, sex. Nobody is responsible for things that they do wrong anymore. To me if you are here illegally you ARE doing something wrong. You pay the consequences. We need to start treating illegals like they aren't welcome here and either get them to be legal or kick them out. This problem can't just be ignored by both sides anymore.

You leave My Natty , smoke and sexcapades alone
get them Illegal bastages But leave My vices er Saintly dealios alone ya bastage :P

[ndpruitt03]

You leave My Natty , smoke and sexcapades alone
get them Illegal bastages But leave My vices er Saintly dealios alone ya bastage :P


With alcohol and sex I was thinking more underage problems there. But people almost think that nothing wrong will happen when you do anything you want. You can drink alcohol and have sex. I'm all for legalizing drugs but that won't happen. But things that aren't legal right now like underaged drinking, sex etc. Need to be treated that way instead of just looked at as everyone does it, so it's okay.

Need to treat Illegal people the same way. It's not okay to be an illegal alien.

[diegosooner]

:)

[SanJoaquinSooner]

How bout I just hire the NEXT most qualified who is already a LEGAL citizen?
Then I aint breakin the Law :P

Free markets mean you are free to choose. I support your decision to go with 2nd best.

[olevetonahill]

With alcohol and sex I was thinking more underage problems there. But people almost think that nothing wrong will happen when you do anything you want. You can drink alcohol and have sex. I'm all for legalizing drugs but that won't happen. But things that aren't legal right now like underaged drinking, sex etc. Need to be treated that way instead of just looked at as everyone does it, so it's okay.

Need to treat Illegal people the same way. It's not okay to be an illegal alien.

Hell Nick
Only in America is a 14 yr old considered TOO young .
Most every other country the Folks, Sell the girls off before they get that old .

[olevetonahill]

Free markets mean you are free to choose. I support your decision to go with 2nd best.

juan ? how about ya just support My choice to OBEY the ****in LAW ?:rolleyes:

So in answer to yer post here
Ima pull a Limptard
Yer sayin that no matter what, an Illegal should be considered OVER a Legal ?

[GKeeper316]

as much as i detest the idea of racial profiling, its hard to argue with its effectiveness.

it wasnt a bunch of blond haired sorority girls flying passenger jets into the world trade center, or swimming across the rio grande.

[StoopTroup]

I think Nick is hitting on ya Vet.

[JLEW1818]

as much as i detest the idea of racial profiling, its hard to argue with its effectiveness.

it wasnt a bunch of blond haired sorority girls flying passenger jets into the world trade center, or swimming across the rio grande.

yah and the blowing up of the towers, their religion thought they would be rewarded with virgins in their after life.... . and "those" also cut off American solider heads on film.

[olevetonahill]

I think Nick is hitting on ya Vet.

Thas Ok , Have ya seen his Azz ?:hot: :hot: :hot: :hot:

[JLEW1818]

stinks like sex in here

[olevetonahill]

stinks like sex in here

You an C11 been at it again?
Now shush Ima trying to get nick to Lay down :D

[SanJoaquinSooner]

juan ? how about ya just support My choice to OBEY the ****in LAW ?:rolleyes:

So in answer to yer post here
Ima pull a Limptard
Yer sayin that no matter what, an Illegal should be considered OVER a Legal ?

NO, reread my post! I didn't recommend hiring a coyote.

Change the law so you have access to the best. The best should be legal!

Legalize the best!

But I will fight for your right to be second best!

[MR2-Sooner86]

Only in America is a 14 yr old considered TOO young.

If they're crawlin they're in the right position :D


Anyway, why are we still fighting over this law? Mexico's president and our president don't like it, that should be a dead giveaway that it's a very good thing.