New Alabama Immigration Law.

[Vandy Vol]

The bottom line is this is a piece of shit law.  It will never be enforced and it's a complete waste of tax dollars. 

+10

Illegal immigrants and the way that our government and citizens treat and utilize them are a portion of our economic problems, yet there are people who back a law that is so problematic that it will waste more tax dollars?

It's like trying to heal a bleeding wound with a knife.

Want to pass additional laws that will deter illegal immigration?  Awesome, I'm all for it...as long as you do it right.  This is not even close to right for so many reasons, the most important of which is the fact that it can't feasibly be enforced.

[JR4AU]

+10

Illegal immigrants and the way that our government and citizens treat and utilize them are a portion of our economic problems, yet there are people who back a law that is so problematic that it will waste more tax dollars?

It's like trying to heal a bleeding wound with a knife.

Want to pass additional laws that will deter illegal immigration?  Awesome, I'm all for it...as long as you do it right.  This is not even close to right for so many reasons, the most important of which is the fact that it can't feasibly be enforced.

Blame the perp.

[JR4AU]

Them climbing over the border against documented procedures was illegal. They are still CURRENTLY guilty of doing something illegal. Get into semantics all you wish. Its your job. But what do I know, Im just a simpleton without a law degree right?

I think the word Perpetrator was around before Law and Order The SUVs. So by your logic, anyone who uses a word that is also used on TV had to have gotten it from TV. Check.

I really think you are directing your angst to the wrong people. Please honestly answer me: what the root cause of all of this is? Are you gonna tell me this NEW law is the cause of 40 million undocumented people entering the country the last 20 years? You know good and well, the root of this is a shit ton of people disregarding our federal laws by entering the country illegally and our fed govt (mostly lawyers) letting them.

Don't know about all the lawyers letting them in.  Illegals a problem?  I've heard it is so.  The new ALABAMA law is a crock of shit.  You blame the failure to act on the lawyers, feds, etc?  Then ignore the fact the new law is a crock of shit?  It's a crock of shit.  Unenforceable.  Worthless.  And it has nothing to do with lawyers...it makes no sense, not even to intelligent "simple people".   

[Vandy Vol]

But, when you look at the law, you have to agree with Token. There is no way in hell they REALLY expected this thing to be enforced statewide. Sure, you will have some sheriffs and whatnot that will grandstand and probably create task forces, etc and will run with it. But, for the most part, it's a bluff to illegal immigrants, and the federal government for that matter.

Oh, yeah, I agree that, as it's written now, it isn't enforceable.  At all.

Based on this, I would hope that legislators didn't intend for it to be enforced.  Nonetheless, it would be stupid of legislators to pass a law that they don't want enforced.

The fact of the matter is that our government operates in such a way that, once a law is passed, it can be enforced.  And it's not enforced by the legislators who wrote it, so once it's passed, it's out of their hands; their intentions as to how or even whether they wanted it enforced no longer matter, at least not until a legal challenge is made and a court decides that it needs to look to legislative intent for guidance.

So now, you've passed a completely unenforceable law, and law enforcers are scratching their heads trying to figure out how they should enforce it.  It's going to cause more problems and cost us more money than it should.

Which is why if you don't intend for it to be enforced, or otherwise foresee that it's not going to be able to be enforced constitutionally and with at least some efficiency, then why pass it?

[JR4AU]

Oh, yeah, I agree that, as it's written now, it isn't enforceable.  At all.

Based on this, I would hope that legislators didn't intend for it to be enforced.  Nonetheless, it would be stupid of legislators to pass a law that they don't want enforced.

The fact of the matter is that our government operates in such a way that, once a law is passed, it can be enforced.  And it's not enforced by the legislators who wrote it, so once it's passed, it's out of their hands; their intentions as to how or even whether they wanted it enforced no longer matter, at least not until a legal challenge is made and a court decides that it needs to look to legislative intent for guidance.

So now, you've passed a completely unenforceable law, and law enforcers are scratching their heads trying to figure out how they should enforce it.  It's going to cause more problems and cost us more money than it should.

Which is why if you don't intend for it to be enforced, or otherwise foresee that it's not going to be able to be enforced constitutionally and with at least some efficiency, then why pass it?

They intended for it to be enforced or they wouldn't have written in all the liability for non-enforcement. 

[GH2001]

Don't know about all the lawyers letting them in.  Illegals a problem?  I've heard it is so.  The new ALABAMA law is a crock of shit.  You blame the failure to act on the lawyers, feds, etc?  Then ignore the fact the new law is a crock of shit?  It's a crock of shit.  Unenforceable.  Worthless.  And it has nothing to do with lawyers...it makes no sense, not even to intelligent "simple people".

The law a piece of shit? I believe I said maybe. If it is, then fine. That's another argument.

But you are directing 100% of your angst on the entire situation over a NEW piece of (worthless) legislation.  And you still won't answer the question. Are you telling me the criminal has no part in any of this by having initially broken the law? Where was your outrage at them? Without that, we aren't even having a discussion about a state law.

And BTW - you have said that word more than I have. Maybe you should write it down on a piece of paper and jack off on it since you seem to have the kinky infatuation with it. And yes, you do "blame the perp" as you like to keep repeating, for the mess (along with our fed govt for not enforcing). Usually criminals ARE blamed for the crimes they commit. You, out of all people, should know that. This is gonna be your new "Gus didn't tutor Cam" motto this week isn't it?

Go get some pussy dude.

[GH2001]

But, for the most part, it's a bluff to illegal immigrants, and the federal government for that matter.

I don't say this much but this guy gets it.

[Vandy Vol]

But you are directing 100% of your angst on the entire situation over a NEW piece of (worthless) legislation.  And you still won't answer the question. Are you telling me the criminal has no part in any of this by having initially broken the law? Where was your outrage at them? Without that, we aren't even having a discussion about a state law.

But, this discussion is about the state law, isn't it?  I thought I read the thread title correctly...

If a law is passed which allows an officer to shoot drunk drivers on the spot, then am I expected to express my outrage regarding the recklessness of drunk drivers and ignore discussion about this new law?  Does the new law not warrant discussion or outrage simply because drunk drivers have been a problem ever since Henry T. Ford decided to invent a vehicle?

The law can't be enforced as it is.  It will cause too many problems and cost too much money.  Based on that, I think discussion about the law (and outrage about the law) is warranted.  This isn't to say that the underlying reason for the law being passed in the first place should be ignored.  But just because there is an underlying problem doesn't mean that any old law which poorly attempts to address the problem should be allowed to exist.

[JR4AU]

The law a piece of shit? I believe I said maybe. If it is, then fine. That's another argument.

But you are directing 100% of your angst on the entire situation over a NEW piece of (worthless) legislation.  And you still won't answer the question. Are you telling me the criminal has no part in any of this by having initially broken the law? Where was your outrage at them? Without that, we aren't even having a discussion about a state law.

And BTW - you have said that word more than I have. Maybe you should write it down on a piece of paper and jack off on it since you seem to have the kinky infatuation with it. And yes, you do "blame the perp" as you like to keep repeating, for the mess (along with our fed govt for not enforcing). Usually criminals ARE blamed for the crimes they commit. You, out of all people, should know that. This is gonna be your new "Gus didn't tutor Cam" motto this week isn't it?

Go get some pussy dude.

Ok, you got me, "perp" is one of my pet peeves.   But a "perp" isn't a perp if there's not a law making him one.  As I said, being an "illegal" in this country isn't a CRIME!  They tried to make it one in Alabama, but failed miserably.   The portions of the law not currently under Federal injunction, are still difficult to understand at best, and largely unenforceable in practice. 

The law is a piece of shit.  It doesn't do what it's intended to do.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that sort of thing.  I agree, somewhat, that the "illegal" problem is a problem, but give me a good way to deal with it.  Don't burden me with something that is unenforceable and subjects me to liability.  Too much to ask? 

[GH2001]

But, this discussion is about the state law, isn't it?  I thought I read the thread title correctly...

If a law is passed which allows an officer to shoot drunk drivers on the spot, then am I expected to express my outrage regarding the recklessness of drunk drivers and ignore discussion about this new law?  Does the new law not warrant discussion or outrage simply because drunk drivers have been a problem ever since Henry T. Ford decided to invent a vehicle?

The law can't be enforced as it is.  It will cause too many problems and cost too much money.  Based on that, I think discussion about the law (and outrage about the law) is warranted.  This isn't to say that the underlying reason for the law being passed in the first place should be ignored.  But just because there is an underlying problem doesn't mean that any old law which poorly attempts to address the problem should be allowed to exist.

True. I think JR and I agree more than he thinks. My overall point is that if people had gotten as fired up about the initial problem as they are getting about this new law, we might not even be in the situation. The people coming into the country illegally by the millions knew good and well it wasn't on the up and up. And no one gave 2 shits about it until it had gotten out of control. Reactive - that's what we've been on this issue. If JR would stop for a min (like you have done), cool his jets and try to understand another valid point of view instead of trying to argue, he might would see we don't totally disagree. Also, as RWS said, I really think this whole thing is a bluff. IF it is, it would appear real dumb from a small battles perspective, but strategic in the war. It has gotten attention on the problem. Serious attention, whether its the solution or not. It may lead to it.

[JR4AU]

True. I think JR and I agree more than he thinks. My overall point is that if people had gotten as fired up about the initial problem as they are getting about this new law, we might not even be in the situation. The people coming into the country illegally by the millions knew good and well it wasn't on the up and up. And no one gave 2 shits about it until it had gotten out of control. Reactive - that's what we've been on this issue. If JR would stop for a min (like you have done), cool his jets and try to understand another valid point of view instead of trying to argue, he might would see we don't totally disagree. Also, as RWS said, I really think this whole thing is a bluff. IF it is, it would appear real dumb from a small battles perspective, but strategic in the war. It has gotten attention on the problem. Serious attention, whether its the solution or not. It may lead to it.

My jets are hot, not at you, but this new law, which was shoved down my gullet on Friday.  I'm not arguing with you, which YOU don't seem to get.  As pointed out, the law was a bluff to run them off.  Here's my main most argument with it.  It was supposed to be a bluff...the kind of law passed where those that wrote it could say "look at me, I'm tough on illegals" at election time.  The civil liability part was supposed to be axed...but was included in the final bill.  So, they've laid a steaming pile of shit at my door, shit with real stink,  and walked away.   Is that really that hard to understand?  Surely you don't have to be a lawyer to get that?

[GH2001]

Ok, you got me, "perp" is one of my pet peeves.   But a "perp" isn't a perp if there's not a law making him one.  As I said, being an "illegal" in this country isn't a CRIME!  They tried to make it one in Alabama, but failed miserably.   The portions of the law not currently under Federal injunction, are still difficult to understand at best, and largely unenforceable in practice. 

The law is a piece of shit.  It doesn't do what it's intended to do.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that sort of thing.  I agree, somewhat, that the "illegal" problem is a problem, but give me a good way to deal with it.  Don't burden me with something that is unenforceable and subjects me to liability.  Too much to ask?

Them being here - in the here and now? No.

The act of them getting here illegally? Yes.

I am unsure of what the statute of limitations on coming into the country illegally is, but as long as the timeframe is within it, it makes sense that you could still charge them with THAT crime. Not the actual being here.

[GH2001]

My jets are hot, not at you, but this new law, which was shoved down my gullet on Friday.  I'm not arguing with you, which YOU don't seem to get.  As pointed out, the law was a bluff to run them off.  Here's my main most argument with it.  It was supposed to be a bluff...the kind of law passed where those that wrote it could say "look at me, I'm tough on illegals" at election time.  The civil liability part was supposed to be axed...but was included in the final bill.  So, they've laid a steaming pile of shit at my door, shit with real stink,  and walked away.   Is that really that hard to understand?  Surely you don't have to be a lawyer to get that?

The law to me is very much a parallel to Cain's 9-9-9 plan. Is it the solution? No. Not even close to perfect. But it ATTEMPTS to address an issue via bold shock value. The authors (as with 999 too) know its not gonna be the final solution. But it draws attention and makes people aware that we have a real problem, which up to now has been ignored. And at that point, something could possibly be crafted/altered to address the problem in a correct thought out way. I look at it as Alabama and Arizona both getting the gov'ts attention through very unorthodox legislation. Like the kid that shits his pants on purpose because none of the teachers will listen to him when he says he has to go to the bathroom. It could end up being a smart move on AL's part if it makes the right people take notice in DC.

[JR4AU]

Them being here - in the here and now? No.

The act of them getting here illegally? Yes.

I am unsure of what the statute of limitations on coming into the country illegally is, but as long as the timeframe is within it, it makes sense that you could still charge them with THAT crime. Not the actual being here.

I know we're circling around to some lawyer shit here, but how do you prove it without actually catching them in the act?

Maybe you don't know this either, and if you do, then excuse me.  A large portion of "illegals" arrived here legally.  Yes, even the brown skinned ones. 

[GH2001]

I know we're circling around to some lawyer shit here, but how do you prove it without actually catching them in the act?

Maybe you don't know this either, and if you do, then excuse me.  A large portion of "illegals" arrived here legally.  Yes, even the brown skinned ones.

Other than birth from an illegal, please expound for my listening pleasure.

And yes, it's hard to prove. I'm just saying they are still guilty of getting here outside of the process. You can bust someone for a crime WAY after they've committed it. But again, like you said - hard to prove.

I guess you could make them show their legal docs. If they don't provide? Even if a child is born from an illegal here, there would be a document saying so, no? Assuming it was done via a medical facility.

BTW - this is why I am pissed that this happened in the first place. Now it's almost impossible to undo. If we had closed up our borders before it got out of hand, this wouldn't even be an argument.

[CCTAU]

Can't we just pass a law that says if you have no proof of being here legally, we just drop you in the nearest manhole? I know eventually we'll end up with a bunch of spanish speaking C.H.U.D.s. But I'll take that chance.

[Vandy Vol]

True. I think JR and I agree more than he thinks. My overall point is that if people had gotten as fired up about the initial problem as they are getting about this new law, we might not even be in the situation.

I think most people are fired up about the issue.  If they weren't, then the legislators would have never bothered passing a law.

The problem, at least as it appears to me, is that the legislators have thrown together a piece of shit.

Illegal immigration is difficult to deal with as it is; I don't personally have much of a solution that could be feasibly enforceable with mere legislation.  Nonetheless, I don't think that's an excuse to allow any old bill to become a law simply because it makes a feeble attempt at addressing the problem.

Someone who knows more than me about the immigration system, how it's currently enforced, and how it can be enforced better would need to step up and propose some legitimate legislation that we can get behind.

I don't have a solution, but I know the current law is not it.  That's my main take on the situation.

[Saniflush]

Can't we just pass a law that says if you have no proof of being here legally, we just drop you in the nearest manhole? I know eventually we'll end up with a bunch of spanish speaking C.H.U.D.s. But I'll take that chance.

Sure that's fine the first couple hundred you drop down the sewers but then you come up with them taking over the alligators. 
The alligators were here first.

[AUTailgatingRules]

In fact, they weren't even criminals until this law was passed.

Yes they were, hence the term ILLEGAL alien.  They are here in the country illegally therefore they are criminals.

[JR4AU]

Yes they were, hence the term ILLEGAL alien.  They are here in the country illegally therefore they are criminals.

Nope, it's not a crime.  Common misconception.