Alabama Phone Survey

[Kaos]

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

Yes or no.

The answer is no.

No, it's not the answer.  The law, as written, may need to be revised to make it more enforceable or whatever, but the concept behind it?  Solid. 

The answer is that anyone here "illegally" should get the fuck out.  Get.The.Fuck.Out.   Who has trouble understanding the word illegal? 

Shame on the federal government for not enforcing that.  Shame on all of us for extending the benefit of citizenry to those who don't make the effort to do it right.  Being an American citizen isn't a right granted to everyone for any reason.  We have a special neighborhood.  The very least we can do is enforce the covenants. 

Argue semantics over the phrasing of the law or whatever all day long.  I'm having a hard time grasping, however, that anyone who pays taxes (exorbitant taxes, as it were) could have a problem with making sure that those who live here and are afforded protection are here legally.  Police, fire, public works, education -- all those things cost money.  They should be afforded to legal citizens.  Not illegals. 

[GarMan]

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.

You're right...  I agree with you on this, but according to the language of the law, the state doesn't deport them; they turn them over to the Feds.  I can't disagree with the mess that follows.  You're right. 

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."

Again, all good points...  But, let's consider what happens in other countries for a second.  I've been working in Europe (Netherlands, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Austria and Spain) and Canada for years.  If I'm ever stopped by the local police authority without my US passport, I go directly to their local jail.  There's no begging, pleading, bargaining, nothing...  You go to jail, and you don't get out until you or someone can prove that you belong there legally.  Sometimes, you can call the local embassy, and they'll send a representative with a copy of your passport.  Sometimes, you'll have to contact someone from your local office to get into your hotel room to get your passport for you.  And, if you can't provide proof after a few days while sitting in jail, you're getting deported. 

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. 

I agree to an extent, but that doesn't invalidate the e-Verify portion of the bill.  In fact, it doesn't invalidate several portions of the bill.  They can still be enforced without violating civil rights, unreasonable arrests or whatever else. 

[GarMan]

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. 

Captain Know-it-all...  Fucking pathetic... 

The law enforcement side of this that deals directly with illegals is fucked up; I agree.  But that's not the entire bill.  There are several components that can still be implemented without overburdening local law enforcement, and they would serve as excellent deterrents to illegal immigration. 

You don't want to discuss it...  That's fine.  Harrumph harrumph harrumph...

[JR4AU]

Captain Know-it-all...  Fucking pathetic... 

 

[wreckingball]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_312.pdf

Some notables:

51% male
49% female

If Election was Today:

28% Newt
31% Mitt
30% Rick
Barack Obama
Is Alabama's Immigration Law a Good Thing?

67% Yes
22% No
12% Not Sure

Is Barack Obama a Christian or Muslim?

60% Muslim
14% Christian
41% Not Sure

Do you believe in evolution?

60% No
26% Yes
13% Not Sure

Should interracial marriage be legal or illegal?

67% Legal
21% Illegal

Are you an Alabama or Auburn fan?

58% Alabama
28% Auburn
14% Not Sure

[GarMan]

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

Yes or no.

The answer is no.

These poll questions are total bullshit.  They force you into one extreme or the other.  There's a solid 60-70% of this law that could still be enforced without all of the shit that Token, JR and others bitch about.  Do you really scrap the whole thing over that, or do you fix it?  I'm of the opinion that they should remove the legally contentious items and enforce the rest, at least until they can revise their approach with a more reasonable strategy. 

[GarMan]

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.

That part that you just referenced above only accounts for about 15-20% of the bill.  And, as you've explained, if they are arrested for something else, you can perform the immigration checks at that time.  The current bill covers that as well.  It would be completely enforceable without all of this risk, overload, and whatever else... 

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.

Unfortunately, I think you're right...  It's a shame.

[JR4AU]

Unfortunately, I think you're right...  It's a shame.

You get it after all. 

[GarMan]

You get it after all.

[RWS]

Again, all good points...  But, let's consider what happens in other countries for a second.  I've been working in Europe (Netherlands, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Austria and Spain) and Canada for years.  If I'm ever stopped by the local police authority without my US passport, I go directly to their local jail.  There's no begging, pleading, bargaining, nothing...  You go to jail, and you don't get out until you or someone can prove that you belong there legally.  Sometimes, you can call the local embassy, and they'll send a representative with a copy of your passport.  Sometimes, you'll have to contact someone from your local office to get into your hotel room to get your passport for you.  And, if you can't provide proof after a few days while sitting in jail, you're getting deported. 

And that works in other countries because, more than likely, their citizens are not protected by any sort of Bill of Rights, or are not otherwise protected from this scenario in that country's constitution, etc.

I agree to an extent, but that doesn't invalidate the e-Verify portion of the bill.  In fact, it doesn't invalidate several portions of the bill.  They can still be enforced without violating civil rights, unreasonable arrests or whatever else.

e-Verify is probably the only part of the bill that will survive, but it will be similar to Arizona's. There won't be any criminal repercussions. They will simply deny your business license renewal after the second incident of hiring somebody that is not legal, or something similar. It will be state law that all businesses use e-Verify. And even then, e-Verify is only meant to screen new hires; not current employees. And the only real reason Alabama will be able to enforce anything e-Verify related is because federal law exists, and the feds want everybody to use it. You see, when you're passing law to work hand-in-hand with federal law that has already been deemed legal by the Supreme Court, it's going to be smooth sailing. But when you're attempting to circumvent federal law by passing a law that really isn't legal in the first place, you're going to get a big fuck you.

The "problem" is that laws are not meant to be written to where the ends justifies the means. Alot of it works on probable cause, intent, etc. And that probable cause cannot be based upon somebody's skin color, religion, nationality, etc.

[Kaos]

And that works in other countries because, more than likely, their citizens are not protected by any sort of Bill of Rights, or are not otherwise protected from this scenario in that country's constitution, etc.

Goat fuck. 

Citizens are protected.  There's no harm in being detained while your status is verified if there are questions.  That's not a violation of shit.  That's a protection from shit. 

Fuck illegals.  CITIZENS are protected.  Not illegals.   That's the way it should be.  Can't spell USA with out US. 

[RWS]

There's a solid 60-70% of this law that could still be enforced without all of the shit that Token, JR and others bitch about.  Do you really scrap the whole thing over that, or do you fix it?  I'm of the opinion that they should remove the legally contentious items and enforce the rest, at least until they can revise their approach with a more reasonable strategy.

The thing about that is, ALOT of the shit that could "still be enforced" is law that ALREADY EXISTS right now. It's simply slightly re-worded and stuffed into a new package. It's sold to to every Tom, Dick, and Harry as something brand new, but when you get down to what those parts of the law actually do, it isn't.

Look, I'm all about folks that are here paying their taxes, being here legally, etc. I have certain responsibilities as a legal citizen, and so should they. But you can't just conjure up shit that is illegal and pass it as law, and expect everybody (especially those involved in the criminal justice system) to be OK with it. You're putting their asses on the line civilly by passing it, and they're going to raise hell.

[RWS]

Goat fuck. 

Citizens are protected.  There's no harm in being detained while your status is verified if there are questions.  That's not a violation of shit.  That's a protection from shit. 

Fuck illegals.  CITIZENS are protected.  Not illegals.   That's the way it should be.  Can't spell USA with out US.

Our laws are not written like theirs. Plain and simple. Their laws afford them the ability to detain people the way they do. Ours don't. And it would be hard to make the case that in Canada, you were pulled over because you looked American, as would probably be the case in a number of other countries or regions. That is where Alabama's law is running into alot of trouble too. Again, laws are not written to where the ends justifies the means. The way Alabama's law is written, it opens the door to a fuckton of profiling. You have to have solid probable cause to do things.

[GarMan]

And that works in other countries because, more than likely, their citizens are not protected by any sort of Bill of Rights, or are not otherwise protected from this scenario in that country's constitution, etc.

That may be true of Russia, Cuba and similar...  We've just become accustomed to a broad/liberal overly sensitive understanding of these rights.  I wouldn't mind if an officer asked me for proof of citizenship, as long as my DL was good enough.  Just ask everyone...  Then, you're not violating anybody's precious rights. 

e-Verify is probably the only part of the bill that will survive, but it will be similar to Arizona's. There won't be any criminal repercussions. They will simply deny your business license renewal after the second incident of hiring somebody that is not legal, or something similar. It will be state law that all businesses use e-Verify. And even then, e-Verify is only meant to screen new hires; not current employees. And the only real reason Alabama will be able to enforce anything e-Verify related is because federal law exists, and the feds want everybody to use it. You see, when you're passing law to work hand-in-hand with federal law that has already been deemed legal by the Supreme Court, it's going to be smooth sailing. But when you're attempting to circumvent federal law by passing a law that really isn't legal in the first place, you're going to get a big fuck you.

The "problem" is that laws are not meant to be written to where the ends justifies the means. Alot of it works on probable cause, intent, etc. And that probable cause cannot be based upon somebody's skin color, religion, nationality, etc.

I understand your point, but I'm not suggesting that e-Verify be used for anything other than a deterrent.  You don't need criminal charges.  Fine the business or shut them down after repeated violations.  The Georgia House just passed legislation that prohibits illegals from attending public schools and universities.  That's already in Alabama's law.  It might even be in Arizona's and South Carolina's too.  Seems fair...  Extend the verification process across other benefits and legal dealings as well.  Invalidate contracts...  No leases or rent agreements...  No EBT cards...  No welfare...  Much of this is in the Alabama law.  It all seems reasonable.  Nobody's being singled out because everyone has to provide a birth certificate, unless you're running for President. 

[GarMan]

The thing about that is, ALOT of the shit that could "still be enforced" is law that ALREADY EXISTS right now. It's simply slightly re-worded and stuffed into a new package. It's sold to to every Tom, Dick, and Harry as something brand new, but when you get down to what those parts of the law actually do, it isn't.

Yes...  I agree that some of it already exists.  It's just not enforced as much as it should be.  However, there is a lot of it that's new.  I keep running back to e-Verify, but it's also any verification of citizenship that would be required for a number of scenarios that are not included under current law. 

Look, I'm all about folks that are here paying their taxes, being here legally, etc. I have certain responsibilities as a legal citizen, and so should they. But you can't just conjure up shit that is illegal and pass it as law, and expect everybody (especially those involved in the criminal justice system) to be OK with it. You're putting their asses on the line civilly by passing it, and they're going to raise hell.

I'm in complete agreement with you on that, and this is probably the 15% that should be gutted or re-architected... 

[Token]

[GH2001]

I agree here but the amount of illegals themselves are also represented by that picture as well as far as being a burden on the system. Don't forget the root cause of this mess. It's two fold.

I agree that the way it is written is awful and is a drain on the system and is even unenforceable most of the time. But I also agree with Kaos in the fact that the concept is solid. I like e-verfiy, I like that it has the current fed law in it.

But yeah, it needs to be rewritten. I only answered YES because of the concept and e-verfiy. And that's the problem with these questions in the poll - they make you answer in black and white to very gray questions. It puts people in a bind to choose the lesser of 2 silly extremes. I can see why Kaos abstained.

I def have no personal issues with Mexicans. JR and I got in a lengthy debate with GarMan and I think TH in another thread a couple of weeks ago about how to deal with the illegals that are here. I favor Newt's method of humanely dealing with the productive ones who want to be here and work. To call anyone who supports an illegal immigrant law as a racist just reiterates the same rhetoric that goons like Sharpton and Jackson have used to brainwash people. Youre better than that dude.

[GarMan]

I agree here but the amount of illegals themselves are also represented by that picture as well as far as being a burden on the system. Don't forget the root cause of this mess. It's two fold.

I agree that the way it is written is awful and is a drain on the system and is even unenforceable most of the time. But I also agree with Kaos in the fact that the concept is solid. I like e-verfiy, I like that it has the current fed law in it.

But yeah, it needs to be rewritten. I only answered YES because of the concept and e-verfiy. And that's the problem with these questions in the poll - they make you answer in black and white to very gray questions. It puts people in a bind to choose the lesser of 2 silly extremes. I can see why Kaos abstained.

I def have no personal issues with Mexicans. JR and I got in a lengthy debate with GarMan and I think TH in another thread a couple of weeks ago about how to deal with the illegals that are here. I favor Newt's method of humanely dealing with the productive ones who want to be here and work. To call anyone who supports an illegal immigrant law as a racist just reiterates the same rhetoric that goons like Sharpton and Jackson have used to brainwash people. Youre better than that dude. 

^^^EXACTLY^^^

[Token]

I agree here but the amount of illegals themselves are also represented by that picture as well as far as being a burden on the system. Don't forget the root cause of this mess. It's two fold.

I agree that the way it is written is awful and is a drain on the system and is even unenforceable most of the time. But I also agree with Kaos in the fact that the concept is solid. I like e-verfiy, I like that it has the current fed law in it.

But yeah, it needs to be rewritten. I only answered YES because of the concept and e-verfiy. And that's the problem with these questions in the poll - they make you answer in black and white to very gray questions. It puts people in a bind to choose the lesser of 2 silly extremes. I can see why Kaos abstained.

I def have no personal issues with Mexicans. JR and I got in a lengthy debate with GarMan and I think TH in another thread a couple of weeks ago about how to deal with the illegals that are here. I favor Newt's method of humanely dealing with the productive ones who want to be here and work. To call anyone who supports an illegal immigrant law as a racist just reiterates the same rhetoric that goons like Sharpton and Jackson have used to brainwash people. Youre better than that dude.

They are a burden on the system because we allow them to be a burden on the system.  I've been saying it for however long it's been debated on this site.  Deportation is not the answer.  I don't know how much money is spent on illegals in this country, but I know how much is spent deporting less than 1% every year.  It's ridiculous. 

Instead of spending billions a year deporting less than 1% of the population of illegals, how about we reform the system so they aren't a burden on tax payers?  And while we are at it, let's also use the same "reform" bill and apply it to the millions of lazy ass Americans who are also a major tax burden on the system. 

[Snaggletiger]

They are a burden on the system because we allow them to be a burden on the system.  I've been saying it for however long it's been debated on this site.  Deportation is not the answer.  I don't know how much money is spent on illegals in this country, but I know how much is spent deporting less than 1% every year.  It's ridiculous. 

Instead of spending billions a year deporting less than 1% of the population of illegals, how about we reform the system so they aren't a burden on tax payers?  And while we are at it, let's also use the same "reform" bill and apply it to the millions of lazy ass Americans who are also a major tax burden on the system.

Damn right. Time for GF to stop sucking that gubment tit dry and do something productive.