Alabama Phone Survey

[JR4AU]

I'm completely with you on that.  No argument from me on that...

So, if you agree, then what about the law could possibly be good, or make anyone think it is unless they're completely ignorant about it?

[Vandy Vol]

Are you an Alabama or Auburn fan?

58% Alabama
28% Auburn
14% Not Sure
Another math failure.

Unless it isn't.

[Snaggletiger]

Yeah, FUCK the constitution!

Uh oh...trouble

[Token]

So, let's do nothing...   

Honestly, doing nothing would have been less costly than passing that piece of crap unenforceable law, and it would have accomplished the same thing.  NOTHING. 

 

[GarMan]

Yeah, FUCK the constitution!

Your interpretation isn't always reality.  Aside from that, it's amazing how you never seem to mind when Obama ignores the Constitution.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/16/obama-tears-up-the-constitution/

[JR4AU]

Honestly, doing nothing would have been less costly than passing that piece of crap unenforceable law, and it would have accomplished the same thing.  NOTHING.

Except then some in Montgomery couldn't stump the state getting "hell yeah, get them Mexakins, outta hyere" to them talking about the tough "ill eagle" legislation they passed.

[GarMan]

So, if you agree, then what about the law could possibly be good, or make anyone think it is unless they're completely ignorant about it?

Let's try it this way.
- Section 13 parrots federal immigration law...  Unless you have an issue with the federal law, what could be wrong or un-Constitutional about this?
- What's wrong with e-Verify?  Hell, Obama promoted its use, so it must be good.
- The Alabama law specifically prohibits consideration by law enforcement officials of the race, color, or national origin of a detained person in determining reasonable suspicion or probable cause in questioning the person.

[JR4AU]

Let's try it this way.
- Section 13 parrots federal immigration law...  Unless you have an issue with the federal law, what could be wrong or un-Constitutional about this?
- What's wrong with e-Verify?  Hell, Obama promoted its use, so it must be good.
- The Alabama law specifically prohibits consideration by law enforcement officials of the race, color, or national origin of a detained person in determining reasonable suspicion or probable cause in questioning the person.

Got no problem with everify, I think it's good.  But in the end, if it's unenforceable...what's the point?

[GarMan]

Got no problem with everify, I think it's good.  But in the end, if it's unenforceable...what's the point?

Obviously, there are portions of this that are enforceable.  For instance, using e-Verify when people apply for jobs, school, licenses or government benefits...  Or, after someone has been arrested for another crime, why couldn't you verify their status and take appropriate action?  We all know that the legislation isn't perfect, but that shouldn't invalidate the whole damn thing...

[JR4AU]

Obviously, there are portions of this that are enforceable.  For instance, using e-Verify when people apply for jobs, school, licenses or government benefits...  Or, after someone has been arrested for another crime, why couldn't you verify their status and take appropriate action?  We all know that the legislation isn't perfect, but that shouldn't invalidate the whole damn thing...

The point of the legislation was to criminalize the status of "being here illegally" and hiring, harboring, etc., "illegals" whether they came illegally, or overstayed their visa.  It has NEVER been a CRIME to be here "illegally".  EVER! 

EVerify, and other provisions have already been in force in the Fed. law.  AZ and AL sought to make it a CRIME to be here "illegally".  To prove someone is here illegally, or to prove a crime of employing one, or harboring one, etc, etc, you have to have evidence.  Guess who has any such documentation?  That's right, the Feds.  Guess who has plainly stated, they're not providing it to the states for such prosecutions? 

[GarMan]

The point of the legislation was to criminalize the status of "being here illegally" and hiring, harboring, etc., "illegals" whether they came illegally, or overstayed their visa.  It has NEVER been a CRIME to be here "illegally".  EVER! 

EVerify, and other provisions have already been in force in the Fed. law.  AZ and AL sought to make it a CRIME to be here "illegally".  To prove someone is here illegally, or to prove a crime of employing one, or harboring one, etc, etc, you have to have evidence.  Guess who has any such documentation?  That's right, the Feds.  Guess who has plainly stated, they're not providing it to the states for such prosecutions? 

Interesting...  So, even though portions of the legislation echo federal immigration law, the Alabama law somehow criminalizes illegal aliens, while the federal laws somehow do not.  After reading it, I just don't see where an illegal alien would be charged with some sort of "illegal alien" crime.  I do see reference to charges and penalties for dealing in false identification documents and vital records identity fraud, but I don't see any new criminal status for illegal aliens.  Care to provide a reference?  BTW, if I'm reading the law correctly, the state just turns them over to the Feds unless they are being prosecuted for other crimes in the state of Alabama. 

Bringing e-Verify down to the state level can't be a bad thing, especially since the federal government is providing access to it.  And, since the federal government is providing access to e-Verify, I guess they are providing some evidence to verify a person's status to an extent. 

So, why is this law baaaaad again?  Perhaps, there are a couple of glitches, I suppose.

[JR4AU]

Interesting...  So, even though portions of the legislation echo federal immigration law, the Alabama law somehow criminalizes illegal aliens, while the federal laws somehow do not.  After reading it, I just don't see where an illegal alien would be charged with some sort of "illegal alien" crime.  I do see reference to charges and penalties for dealing in false identification documents and vital records identity fraud, but I don't see any new criminal status for illegal aliens.  Care to provide a reference?  BTW, if I'm reading the law correctly, the state just turns them over to the Feds unless they are being prosecuted for other crimes in the state of Alabama. 

Bringing e-Verify down to the state level can't be a bad thing, especially since the federal government is providing access to it.  And, since the federal government is providing access to e-Verify, I guess they are providing some evidence to verify a person's status to an extent. 

So, why is this law baaaaad again?  Perhaps, there are a couple of glitches, I suppose.

It's bad.  I'm not wasting anymore time with someone that's fucking convinced that everything they believe or think they know is the gospel.

[GarMan]

It's bad.  I'm not wasting anymore time with someone that's fucking convinced that everything they believe or think they know is the gospel.

 

[JR4AU]

It's good you find your own ignorant arrogance funny. 

[RWS]

Interesting...  So, even though portions of the legislation echo federal immigration law, the Alabama law somehow criminalizes illegal aliens, while the federal laws somehow do not.  After reading it, I just don't see where an illegal alien would be charged with some sort of "illegal alien" crime.  I do see reference to charges and penalties for dealing in false identification documents and vital records identity fraud, but I don't see any new criminal status for illegal aliens.  Care to provide a reference?  BTW, if I'm reading the law correctly, the state just turns them over to the Feds unless they are being prosecuted for other crimes in the state of Alabama. 

Bringing e-Verify down to the state level can't be a bad thing, especially since the federal government is providing access to it.  And, since the federal government is providing access to e-Verify, I guess they are providing some evidence to verify a person's status to an extent. 

So, why is this law baaaaad again?  Perhaps, there are a couple of glitches, I suppose.

One of the problems with the law is that it depends on the feds on the backend of the process. For the state to prove their case, they are going to need cooperation from the federal level. Which they aren't giving. And then, do you think the state is deporting these folks back to wherever the fuck they came from? No. 9 times out of 10, or unless they really fucked up or have been previously deported, immigration picks them up and they get taken to a local immigration office, given a court date, and cut loose. That is if you can actually get immigration to place a detainer. Then they don't show up to their deportation hearing. And guess what? They're not showing up for their municipal court date either. Because they aren't going to get deported for a failure to appear either.

Another problem is there is no quick easy way to verify somebody's residency. Sure, maybe you can't find them by name and DOB. But maybe the officer fucked up the spelling of the name, or the dispatcher fucked up the DOB. So you take this poor bastard to jail. Because afterall, it takes about an hour to get an answer from immigration on status when you send an immigration query to them. So hey, this guy turns out to actually be here legally. It's not just as simple as "Oh hey, my bad. You're free to go now."

This whole thing is flawed on face value. I understand what this law should accomplish, but the way they wrote it is incredibly fucked up. They're basically asking officers to risk their asses civilly to enforce a law that almost guarantees that people will have their civil rights violated. And lawyers will annihilate those officers in court damn near every time. Bottom line is, at the state level, you simply cannot write a law in the way Alabama did without violating civil rights. The law is unenforceable, and will simply create a round-and-round-we-go in the court systems.

[JR4AU]

One of the problems with the law is that it depends on the feds on the backend of the process. For the state to prove their case, they are going to need cooperation from the federal level. Which they aren't giving. And then, do you think the state is deporting these folks back to wherever the fuck they came from? No. 9 times out of 10, or unless they really fucked up or have been previously deported, immigration picks them up and they get taken to a local immigration office, given a court date, and cut loose. That is if you can actually get immigration to place a detainer. Then they don't show up to their deportation hearing. And guess what? They're not showing up for their municipal court date either. Because they aren't going to get deported for a failure to appear either.

Another problem is there is no quick easy way to verify somebody's residency. Sure, maybe you can't find them by name and DOB. But maybe the officer fucked up the spelling of the name, or the dispatcher fucked up the DOB. So you take this poor bastard to jail. Because afterall, it takes about an hour to get an answer from immigration on status when you send an immigration query to them. So hey, this guy turns out to actually be here legally. It's not just as simple as "Oh hey, my bad. You're free to go now."

This whole thing is flawed on face value. I understand what this law should accomplish, but the way they wrote it is incredibly fucked up. They're basically asking officers to risk their asses civilly to enforce a law that almost guarantees that people will have their civil rights violated. And lawyers will annihilate those officers in court damn near every time. Bottom line is, at the state level, you simply cannot write a law in the way Alabama did without violating civil rights. The law is unenforceable, and will simply create a round-and-round-we-go in the court systems.

Waste of bandwidth.  He's decided it just needs a little tweeking, and it mostly good, despite the plethora of Judges, DAs, LEO, and even the Atty Gen. saying it pretty much sux.  Garman is the all knowing.  He knows law, psychology, physiology, he fucking knows everything.  Ask him if you don't believe me. 

[Vandy Vol]

Waste of bandwidth.  He's decided it just needs a little tweeking, and it mostly good, despite the plethora of Judges, DAs, LEO, and even the Atty Gen. saying it pretty much sux.  Garman is the all knowing.  He knows law, psychology, physiology, he fucking knows everything.  Ask him if you don't believe me.

Except basketball games.  He doesn't know what goes on in them because he's napping.

[GarMan]

It's good you find your own ignorant arrogance funny.

The arrogance has totally been on your part.  You know better, speaking in over-generalizations at the level of Jessie Jackson.  I know the law isn't perfect, but how would you fix it rather that just dismissing the whole damn thing?  Seriously... 

[AUChizad]

The arrogance has totally been on your part.  You know better, speaking in over-generalizations at the level of Jessie Jackson.  I know the law isn't perfect, but how would you fix it rather that just dismissing the whole damn thing?  Seriously...

Fuck's sake, man. The question was "Is Alabama's Immigration Law a Good Thing?"

Yes or no.

The answer is no.

[RWS]

The arrogance has totally been on your part.  You know better, speaking in over-generalizations at the level of Jessie Jackson.  I know the law isn't perfect, but how would you fix it rather that just dismissing the whole damn thing?  Seriously...

The problem is, at the state level, you can't fix it without dismissing it. You just can't. The only real sure-fire solution is going back to the way things were; if you already have somebody in jail on whatever charge you arrested them on, run the query then, and deal with it that way. As shitty as that may be, it is damn near the only way you can do it legally. You simply cannot determine a person's residency within a few minutes. Just because they have a previously issued state ID doesn't mean they are here legally. What are you going to do, detain every contact you make for an hour while you run immigration queries all day? Good luck with that shit in civil court.

I understand that alot of politicians are feeling the pressure on getting this thing passed, but the problem is they just don't have the balls to say "Hey, we can't do this shit legally". Politicians would rather pass it, knowing damn good and well that when it comes before the higher courts, they will tell the state to shove it up their ass.

It's all OK with them, because it was a bluff in the first place. They knew from day one they couldn't come up with a bill that the courts would not shred to bits.