• Florida Republican leaders drawing up Arizona-styled anti-immigrant legislation
    193 replies, posted
[quote]Florida Republican leaders have begun crafting anti-illegal-immigrant legislation modeled after an Arizona law that has incited widespread protests and fueled national and international debate over United States immigration policies. Under the proposed bill, police would have broad power under state law to ask suspects for proof of legal residency, said Rep. William Snyder, a Republican from Stuart who plans to introduce the legislation in November. "We have significant components from the Arizona bill that I plan to incorporate," he said. "We have the beginnings of it." The effort, which would be filed for consideration during the March legislative session, is already drawing broad support within the GOP. In an election year shaped by anti-incumbency sentiment, majority leaders in the Florida Senate and House said a new approach is needed to address the federal government's failure to temper illegal immigration. The effort has the backing of both leading Republican gubernatorial candidates — businessman Rick Scott and Attorney General Bill McCollum. In fact, McCollum's office is helping to draft the bill. Snyder, a former police officer, said the proposed legislation is needed to protect undocumented immigrants, who are vulnerable to abusive employers and violent criminals. "This is a human right issue," he said. "They don't enjoy the same rights and privileges that you and I do. The solution is to enforce the laws that currently exist and to discourage people from coming here to 'find a better life' when in fact they just come here and are victimized." Immigrant advocates and Hispanic lawmakers alike called the measure an unconstitutional assault on minority communities. "The reaction is, 'What? This is ridiculous,' " said Neelofer Syed, a Tampa immigration lawyer who hails from Pakistan. "It is supposed to be that you are legal until you are proven guilty. This law is like, 'we think you are guilty unless you establish that you are innocent.' " Rep. J.C. Planas, a Republican from Miami, called it an election year stunt. "I don't understand how anyone can think the Arizona law is good for Florida," said Planas, chairman of the Florida Hispanic Legislative Caucus. "It is a huge waste of police resources to start doing these things." Senate and House leaders said immigration reform is ripe for passage. "What we want to do is encourage legal immigration and discourage illegal immigration," said incoming Senate President Mike Haridopolos, who cautioned that any changes will be shaped by how the Arizona law is put into practice after it takes effect next month. Republican leaders in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Minnesota, South Carolina and Michigan have made similar vows to mirror Arizona's immigration law, amid growing criticism that the federal government has not adequately protected the nation's borders. Civil rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have filed legal challenges to the legislation and President Barack Obama's administration is expected to follow suit. Critics questioned why Florida lawmakers would consider replicating Arizona's untested immigration strategy while legal challenges are still pending. "Rep. Snyder's proposal solves nothing, exploits public concern over immigration and just creates new problems," said Howard Simon, executive director of ACLU Florida. The tension has become a rallying point for candidates on both sides of the political spectrum. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink has highlighted her Republican opponents' support of the law in stumps speeches across the state. "She was opposed to the law in Arizona,'' said campaign spokeswoman Kyra Jennings. "She believes it unfairly discriminated against American citizens. She would veto that type of legislation." Championing tougher immigration laws is a risky election strategy, said George Gonzalez, a University of Miami political science professor. "It is a way to channel people's anger and frustration about the labor market onto a group and to take advantage of it, too," he said. But it could also anger Hispanic voters, an important constituency in Florida's increasingly diverse political landscape, Gonzalez said. Florida's estimated illegal immigrant populations ranks third in the nation. Arizona places seventh. But while Florida's undocumented population has dropped by 10 percent during the past decade, Arizona's climbed by 42 percent. "None of this is foolproof," Gonzalez said. "It could blow up in the Republicans' faces either way." Snyder said he doesn't want his law to stir up the same accusations of racism that hounded Arizona's decision. His law would be refined, he said, because it would only allow law enforcement officials to inquire about immigration status during a potential arrest or traffic violation. In Arizona, officers are required to request legal documentation during any lawful stop if "reasonable suspicion" exists. Coming up with the precise language will be difficult, conceded Snyder, who recently defended his views on Fox News. "Reasonable suspicion makes people nervous," he said. But he vowed his final draft would apply equally to all illegal immigrants, regardless of skin color or ethnicity. "I've never in my 32 years been accused of using the 'N' word or being racially motivated," he said. "No one who knows me would say I have a racist bone in my body."[/quote] [B]Source:[/B] [url]http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/florida-republican-leaders-drawing-up-arizona-styled-anti-immigrant/1105078[/url] :cawg:
I think people should get checked for citizenship when they are arrested, and only arrested. As long as the illegals abide by our laws (hurr paradox) and contribute to society they are fine. We just don't want all the criminals from Mexico, especially the fuckers from the drug cartels.
Can't they make a decent anti-illegal immigration law without it involving racial profiling?
[QUOTE=CivilProtection;22888358]Can't they make a decent anti-illegal immigration law without it involving racial profiling?[/QUOTE] You know how hard that is when we're a predominantly white nation? Seriously, put this through your head. You're much less likely to question a white person on his immigration status, true, and if you were to question a hispanic person on his status, it's much more likely for him to be an illegal then the white person. Though, unforeseen circumstances (IE: The white guy has a thick East Euro. accent) can arise. I don't believe we will see a fair immigration law for a long time.
This could be good.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;22888784]You know how hard that is when we're a predominantly white nation? Seriously, put this through your head. You're much less likely to question a white person on his immigration status, true, and if you were to question a hispanic person on his status, it's much more likely for him to be an illegal then the white person. Though, unforeseen circumstances (IE: The white guy has a thick East Euro. accent) can arise. I don't believe we will see a fair immigration law for a long time.[/QUOTE] Yes it is hard. But because something is hard is not a good enough of an excuse to create racially biased legislation.
[QUOTE=Borg184;22888807]This could be good.[/QUOTE] uh, not at all
[QUOTE=Borg184;22888807]This could be good.[/QUOTE] How?
[QUOTE=CivilProtection;22888358]Can't they make a decent anti-illegal immigration law without it involving racial profiling?[/QUOTE] How? Bring up a bill when illegal immigration isn't a problem? It isn't racial profiling. People only think that because it's a possible solution to a big problem and people won't accept it.
[QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;22888870]Yes it is hard. But because something is hard is not a good enough of an excuse to create racially biased legislation.[/QUOTE] No, it's hard because wording in these laws can be accepted as normal or racist, it's all on the perception of those trying to enforce the law and how their citizens respond. A lot of people in Arizona actually support the law, if you've got nothing to hide, then what do you fear? FYI: California has similar laws to Arizona, by law all police in California are supposed to comply with the Customs and Naturalization Service and police if they have reasonable suspicion can ask your immigration status. How come no one's throwing such a fit over California doing this?
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;22889036]if you've got nothing to hide, then what do you fear?[/QUOTE] okay, big brother
:golfclap:
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;22889036]if you've got nothing to hide, then what do you fear?[/QUOTE] GOod point let's allow the government to install surveillance cameras in our homes while we're at it
[QUOTE=wind8ws;22889100]okay, big brother[/QUOTE] Okay, paranoid person.
Fine by me, De Facto profiling is better than active profiling.
[QUOTE=TH89;22889233]GOod point let's allow the government to install surveillance cameras in our homes while we're at it[/QUOTE] and install toilets that have cameras in them and can do complete chemical analysis of our poop
[QUOTE=TH89;22889233]GOod point let's allow the government to install surveillance cameras in our homes while we're at it[/QUOTE] No, you idiots are jumping a gun again. Just because I support this one thing doesn't mean I completely support this "tyrannical government" you guys keep imagining. If you're a legal citizen, why should you care about this law? You shouldn't, you aren't committing a crime. All the police are doing in this situation are doing are just what they do all the time. "Hey, sir, are you committing a crime?" Cry New World Order over something else, but sir this isn't one of them. Oh, and way to cut up my entire argument to try and make me look bad, good job. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - TH89))[/highlight]
While I'm not entirely for this, I can't say they don't have somewhat of a right. EVERYONE has been pussyfooting around illegal immigration for so long that its no big shock people are taking matters into their own hands.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;22889176]:golfclap:[/QUOTE] care to explain why you support racial profiling besides the fact that you're a bigot
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;22889333]If you're a legal citizen, why should you care about this law?[/QUOTE] because we're legal citizens it's like asking us why we care about gay marriage even though we're straight
[QUOTE=thisispain;22889385]because we're legal citizens it's like asking us why we care about gay marriage even though we're straight[/QUOTE] The point I'm making is it doesn't affect you in a bad way, and those it does affect are not meant to be here, whereas Gay marriage affects us because it's happening here and though isn't causing problems, it's causing controversy on how to deal with it, like how Arizona is trying to deal with their problem of illegal immigration.
[QUOTE=JDK721;22889380]care to explain why you support racial profiling besides the fact that you're a bigot[/QUOTE] I'm a bigot? Where did I say I was a bigot? Hell, I didn't even [I]say[/I] I supported this legislation. You like to assume quite a lot from very little, eh?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;22889681]I'm a bigot[/QUOTE] there you said it
[QUOTE=JDK721;22889380]care to explain why you support racial profiling besides the fact that you're a bigot[/QUOTE] [quote=Wikipedia]The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law,[16] and obligates police to make an attempt, when practicable during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official",[17] to determine a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.[18] Police may arrest a person if there is probable cause that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents,[16] and an arrested person cannot be released without confirmation of legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code. A first offense carries a fine of up to $100, plus court costs, and up to 20 days in jail; subsequent offenses can result in up to 30 days in jail[19] (SB 1070 required a minimum fine of $500 for a first violation, and for a second violation a minimum $1,000 fine and a maximum jail sentence of 6 months).[20] A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.[18] The law also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting "the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law" and provides that Arizona citizens can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement.[18][21] A private citizen who prevails in such a lawsuit may be entitled to reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees and court costs.[18] In addition, the law makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which "blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." Vehicles used in such manner are subject to mandatory impounding. Moreover, "encourag[ing] or induc[ing]" illegal immigration, giving shelter to illegal immigrants, and transporting or attempting to transport an illegal alien, either knowingly or while "recklessly" disregarding the individual's immigration-status,[20] will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if fewer than ten illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if ten or more are involved. The offender will be subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each illegal alien so transported or sheltered.[20] [edit] Arizona HB 2162 On April 30, the Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed, House Bill 2162, which modified the law that had been signed a week earlier, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin."[22] The new text also states that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest", lowers the original fine from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $100, and changes incarceration limits from 6 months to 20 days for first-time offenders[/quote] Huh. What about racial profiling again?
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;22889728]Huh. What about racial profiling again?[/QUOTE] Leaving it to the "reasonable suspicion" of the police, in a state where mural artists are asked to remove minorities from school murals, is in all practicality abetting racial profiling.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;22889681]I'm a bigot? Where did I say I was a bigot? Hell, I didn't even [I]say[/I] I supported this legislation. You like to assume quite a lot from very little, eh?[/QUOTE] you support the Arizona immigration bill so logically you'd support this one as well way to deny everything
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;22889649]The point I'm making is it doesn't affect you in a bad way, and those it does affect are not meant to be here, whereas Gay marriage affects us because it's happening here and though isn't causing problems, it's causing controversy on how to deal with it, like how Arizona is trying to deal with their problem of illegal immigration.[/QUOTE] heh ain't my problem *sips bud light*
Besides the problem of "racial profiling", would this bill/law be pretty much accepted nationwide, correct? Or are there other issues? The only thing I can point out wrong with this is the possible breakage of the 4th(?) Amendment.
[QUOTE=JDK721;22889783]you support the Arizona immigration bill so logically you'd support this one as well way to deny everything[/QUOTE] Logically, yes, but where did I ever say it?
[QUOTE=JDK721;22889380]care to explain why you support racial profiling besides the fact that you're a bigot[/QUOTE] Yeah dude thinking that hispanics are more likely to be illegal immigrants than most other races is definitely racial profiling. [editline]07:38PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Potatoes;22890010]Besides the problem of "racial profiling", would this bill/law be pretty much accepted nationwide, correct? Or are there other issues? The only thing I can point out wrong with this is the possible breakage of the 4th(?) Amendment.[/QUOTE] The only thing I can point out wrong with this is that they ask Hispanics if they're legal when they are stopped for a lawful reason. Oh the humanity!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.