There has been a lot of information out there against the new Arizona Law. The issue against the new immigration law is whether it's constitutional, discriminatory and racist. Here is the SB1070 final version that got passed and signed into law. Does the law usurp the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution? Does the law call out a specific group? Does the law, which requires local agencies to comply with federal immigration law, violate anyone's 4th Amendment rights? Let's take a look at the bill to determine (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs_housechanges.doc.htm):
As passed the Senate, S.B. 1070 requires officials and agencies of the state and political subdivisions to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and establishes crimes related to illegal immigration. Specifies requirements for employers who assert an entrapment defense for intentionally or knowingly employing an unauthorized alien.
The House of Representatives adopted a same-subject strike everything amendment that does the following:
Purpose
Requires officials and agencies of the state and political subdivisions to fully comply with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Establishes crimes involving failure to complete an alien registration document, hiring or soliciting work under specified circumstances, and transporting or harboring unlawful aliens, and their respective penalties. Specifies requirements for employers who assert an entrapment defense for intentionally or knowingly employing an unauthorized alien.
Background
Federal law provides that any alien who 1) enters or attempts to enter the U.S. at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, 2) eludes examination by immigration officers, or 3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the U.S. by a willfully false or misleading representation is guilty of improper entry by an alien. For the first commission of the offense, the person is fined, imprisoned up to six months, or both, and for a subsequent offense, is fined, imprisoned up to 2 years, or both (8 U.S.C. § 1325).
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the primary authority for enforcing immigration laws. ICE was created in March 2003 as an investigative branch of the Department of Homeland Security. ICE was the result of combining the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service.
In 2007, Arizona enacted the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), prohibiting an employer from intentionally or knowingly employing an unauthorized alien and establishing penalties for employers in violation. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office administers the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program. The SAVE Program, together with the Social Security Administration (SSA), administers E-Verify, which allows employers to electronically confirm the employment eligibility of all newly hired employees. LAWA requires all Arizona employers to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of new hires. Proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through E-Verify creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.
The fiscal impact is unknown; however, there may be additional costs associated with criminal prosecution and detention of persons who are accused and convicted of the crimes established in this legislation. Additionally, the addition of new fines associated with this measure may also have an impact.
Provisions
Enforcement
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of a person:
a) for any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of the state or political subdivision and
b) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an unlawfully present alien.
2. Adds an exception to the requirement for law enforcement to make a reasonable attempt to determine a person's immigration status if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
3. Requires anyone who is arrested to have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.
4. Requires the person's immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law.
5. Prohibits a law enforcement official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of the state (political subdivision) from solely considering race, color or national origin in implementing the requirement for determining and verifying immigration status, except to the extent permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitutions.
6. Specifies that a person is presumed to not be an unlawfully present alien if the person provides any of the following to a law enforcement officer or agency:
a) a valid Arizona driver license or nonoperating identification license;
b) a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification; or
c) a valid U.S. federal, state or local government issued identification if the entity requires proof of legal presence in the U.S. before issuance.
7. Specifies that this section and the act do not and shall not be construed to implement, authorize or establish the REAL ID Act of 2005, including the use of a radio frequency identification chip.
8. Requires ICE or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to be immediately notified on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any monetary obligation that is imposed on an unlawfully present alien who is convicted of a violation of state or local law.
9. Permits a law enforcement agency to transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in the U.S. and who is in the agency's custody to:
a) a federal facility in this state or
b) any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.
10. Requires a law enforcement agency to obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an unlawfully present alien to a point of transfer that is outside of Arizona
11. Prohibits officials or agencies of the state and political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining an individual's immigration status information or exchanging that information with any other governmental entity for the following official purposes:
a) determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state;
b) verifying any claim of residence or domicile if that verification is required under state law or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in the state;
c) pursuant to federal law; or
d) if the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with federal alien registration laws.
12. Disallows officials or agencies of the state or political subdivisions from adopting or implementing policies that limit immigration enforcement to less than the full extent permitted by federal law, and allows a legal Arizona resident to bring an action in superior court to challenge an official or agency that does so.
13. Requires the court, if there is a judicial finding that an entity has committed a violation, to order the entity to pay a civil penalty of at least $1,000 and not more than $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of the action.
14. Requires the court to collect and remit the civil penalty to the State Treasurer for deposit in the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) Fund.
15. Permits the court to award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency of the state or a political subdivision that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in a proceeding brought to challenge immigration policies or practices.
16. Specifies that law enforcement officers are indemnified by their agencies against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this statute to which the officer may be a party by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency, except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith.
17. Requires this section to be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens.
18. Allows a peace officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.
Willful Failure to Register
19. Adds, as a state offense in addition to any violation of federal law, willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of a related federal law.
20. Permits, in the enforcement of this section, an alien's immigration status to be determined by:
a) a law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status; or
b) ICE or CBP pursuant to federal law.
21. Specifies that a person sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon, commutation of sentence, or release from confinement on any basis except:
a) if temporary removal is authorized by the Arizona Department of Corrections related to inmate employment with the prison, cooperation with voluntary medical research, medical treatment, participation in certain community action activities or compassionate leave; or
b) if the sentence imposed by the court has been served or the person is eligible for release pursuant to earned release credits.
22. Directs the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of at least $500 for the first violation or at least $1,000 for subsequent offenses.
23. Requires the court to collect and remit the assessments to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for a special GIITEM subaccount, which DPS must establish.
24. Subjects monies in the subaccount to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration.
25. Specifies that the offense does not apply to a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the U.S.
26. Specifies that any record related to the immigration status of a person is admissible in any court without further foundation or testimony from a custodian of records if the record is certified as authentic by the government agency that is responsible for maintaining the record.
27. Classifies the violation as follows:
a) a class 3 felony if the person commits the violation while in possession of a dangerous drug, precursor chemicals used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine, a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or property that is used for committing an act of terrorism;
b) a class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense or if the person, within 60 months before the violation, accepted a voluntary removal from the U.S. or has been deported;
c) a class 1 misdemeanor in all other cases.
Unlawful Stopping and Solicitation of Work
28. Specifies that it is unlawful, if a motor vehicle is stopped on a street, roadway or highway and blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic:
a) for a motor vehicle occupant to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location;
b) for a person to enter the motor vehicle in order to be hired by a motor vehicle occupant and to be transported to work at a different location.
29. Stipulates that it is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the U.S. and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in Arizona.
30. Classifies these offenses as class 1 misdemeanors.
31. Defines solicit and unauthorized alien.
Unlawful Transporting or Harboring
32. Specifies that it is unlawful for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to do or attempt to do the following if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the U.S. in violation of law:
a) transport or move an alien in Arizona, in furtherance of the illegal presence of the alien in the U.S., in a means of transportation;
b) conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in Arizona, including any building or means of transportation.
33. Stipulates it is unlawful to encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in Arizona if a person who is in violation of another criminal offense knows or recklessly disregards the fact that such coming to, entering or residing in this state is or will be in violation of law.
34. Subjects a means of transportation used in the commission of a violation to mandatory vehicle immobilization or impoundment.
35. Exempts the following persons from these offenses:
a) a Child Protective Services worker acting in the worker's official capacity; and
b) a person who is acting in the capacity of a first responder, an ambulance attendant or an emergency medical technician in an emergency response situation.
36. Classifies these offenses as class 1 misdemeanors and subjects offenders to fines of at least $1,000, except that a violation that involves 10 or more illegal aliens is a class 6 felony with a fine of at least $1,000 for each alien who is involved.
Investigations of Employers
37. Specifies that it is an affirmative defense to knowingly or intentionally employing an unauthorized alien that the employer was entrapped.
38. Requires the employer to admit by the employer's testimony or other evidence the substantial elements of the violation in order to claim entrapment.
39. Stipulates that an employer who asserts an entrapment defense has the burden of proving the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
a) the idea of committing the violation started with law enforcement officers or their agents rather than with the employer;
b) the officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation; and
c) the employer was not predisposed to commit the violation before the officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.
40. Stipulates that an employer does not establish entrapment if the employer was predisposed to knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien and law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the employer with an opportunity to do so.
41. States that it is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a ruse or to conceal their identities.
42. Allows the conduct of officers and their agents to be considered in determining if an employer has proven entrapment.
43. Directs employers to keep verification records of their employees' work eligibility through E-Verify for the duration of the employee's employment or three years, whichever is longer.
Miscellaneous
44. Permits a peace officer, in the enforcement of Arizona's human smuggling law, to lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.
45. Establishes the GIITEM Fund, consisting of the following:
a) civil penalties from entities that adopt or implement policies that limit immigration enforcement and
b) monies appropriated by the Legislature.
46. Requires DPS to administer the GIITEM Fund.
47. Specifies that monies in the GIITEM Fund are subject to legislative appropriation for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to immigration.
48. Stipulates that the terms of the act regarding immigration have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.
49. Requires the act to be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens.
50. Contains intent and severability clauses.
51. Titles the legislation the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.
52. Makes technical and conforming changes.
53. Becomes effective on the general effective date.
My favorite part of this legislation and a part I didn't see laid out above:
ReplyDeleteA citizen of a jurisdiction may sue their local or state jurisdiction for willful failure to comply with state and federal laws enforcing immigration.
What this means is that if I don't like how much enforcement the state or local police are doing with regards to immigration, I can sue them in court.
What a wonderful way to tie up our court system with frivolous and petty lawsuits.
I agree that allowing the citizens to sue could lead to frivilous and petty lawsuits. I see the ACLU leading the way on that one as well.
ReplyDeleteThe fact though still exists that the Arizona law agencies are just looking to enforce the Federal Immigration law. To say this bill is unconstitutional means the Federal Immigration law is unconstitutional, right?
The ACLU is going to sue to enforce more police enforcment on bill targeting illegal immigrations that many believes violates equal protection? Ah, I think you have the wrong side of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteChris, Arizona law agencies DO NOT have the authority to enforce a federal immigration law without the US Congress empowering them to do so because Foreign policy, of which immigration is a portion, is a federal jurisdiction according to the constitution - not state. By that right alone this law is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteCombine that with the equal protection and unlawful search amendments to the constitution and you have a constitutional nightmare. Even the Wall St. Journal's constitutional scholars said this was the case.
I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time grasping that. The constitution bars states from enacting foreign policy. The constitution bars states from enacting laws that discriminate. The constitution bars states from unlawfully searching a person.
Those are constitutional rights and limitations set out by the founding fathers.
So I ask the question again, do you support the constitution in it's entirety or do you pick and choose? If you pick and choose, there's nothing more to discuss here. If you support it in total, then you must see that this law is unconstitutional.
And no matter what your stance on immigration, an afront to the constitution endangers us all.
Anon..I meant that the ACLU will be bringing the suits to make sure that enforcement is being done in a non-discriminatory way.
ReplyDeleteKevin
ReplyDeleteI do not see this a foreign policy. Arizona is not enacting any new law here that is not already on the books within the United States. The plight of illegal immigration is that there are too few resources so why not allow those most close to the action to have the ability to do what the Federal agencies can do?
The citizens of the State overwhelmingly want something done to stop the killings, kidnappings, and economic burden that comes with illegal immigration. I recognize that States are not to participate in foreign policy but I rank this law on the same shelf as when Governor of Minnesota negotiates with China on trade. If the trade arrangement with China is not deemed Foreign Policy then this law is not either.
I will do my best to defend and stay true to the Constitution but it is about time that States wrestle back the control they gave up to the Federal Government.
"I do not see this a foreign policy."
ReplyDeleteI hate to tell you, but immigration as defined by both law and legal precident is part of foreign policy - like it or not. You don't get to change the rules because you don't like them.
"Arizona is not enacting any new law here that is not already on the books within the United States."
I don't think you understand, it doesn't matter if they're enforcing a law that's been on the federal governments books for 1000 years. Arizona DOES NOT have the authority to enforce federal laws that they have not been empowered to enforce SPECIFICALLY by congress.
"Why not allow those most close to the action to have the ability to do what the Federal agencies can do?"
Because this leads to disconjoined foreign policy. If States could enact immigration policy, California might open it's borders, and Arizona would close theirs. However, once the mexicans are in the US from California, what's to stop them from moving to Arizona across the un-patrolled AZ/CA border? Nothing is the answer.
The reason states don't have the right to set these policies is very clear - it creates conflicts between states that would lead to anarchy and war. This is evidenced by the trade wars of the colonies - which is why the constitution specifically spelled out these rights/limitations to avoid.
"I will do my best to defend and stay true to the Constitution but it is about time that States wrestle back the control they gave up to the Federal Government."
Chris, have you read the constitution? I ask that in all seriousness. The states cannot "wrestle" back control of rights they NEVER had. They never gave up the right to control their borders because it's not their right to give up. I'm not sure what part of that you aren't understanding. You can't claim states rights on this issue - because they have none. The constitution says so.
So again, do you value the constitution or don't you?
Kevin
ReplyDeleteArticle 1 Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay
Nowhere in this section does it say that a State cannot defend its borders or pass law to enforce Federal Law by local agencies. Article IV talks about the States and does not prohibit the illegal immigration law either.
Amendment 14 is evoked here as well and I re-read it. I did not see where a State enforcing Federal Law is prohibited from doing so.Please advise where within the Constitution these things you orate exist.
It's really not that hard a concept. You are a citizen of the USA, not Minnesota. You are only a resident of the state. Citizenship is defined by the 14th amendment (in response to Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857) and control of issues relating to citizenship are the pervue of the Federal government for the above stated reasons.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the supremacy clause of the constitution states that no matter what a state enacts as law, if a federal law contradicts it, the federal law supercedes the state law as long as the federal law is deemed constitutional. That is the case here.
You are attempting to overturn the 14th amendment and 250 years of supporting case law to support this bill.
That flies in the face of a stance that supports the constitution and what it stands for. If you don't like the 14th amendment, repeal it. But until you do so, it's part of the constitution.
And no matter how you try to spin it, this is a federal issue and will be overturned in court. Even the most conservative constitutional scholars agree on that point. And the briefs that will be filed on behalf of the plaintiffs will be staggering in their volume and breadth of society.
When even people like Tom Tancredo (staunch anti-immigration politician) says that this law goes too far you might want to sit up and take notice and ask why.
And then question why on earth you'd support it.
According to Oyez.org, a US Supreme Court Media website, Dred Scot v. Sandford was to determine if Dred Scott was a free man or a slave. The conclusion states: Dred Scott was a slave. Under Articles III and IV, argued Taney, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship. Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.
ReplyDeleteDred Scott laid claim that since he was free in the territory then he'd be a free man in a state. The above mentions citizenship tied to residing in a state and not residing in a territory. Yes, one is a citizen of the USA but must be a citizen of a state not a territory.
As for the Supremacy Clause, the bill that Arizona passed does not usurp Federal Authority. It gives local agencies the same powers of enforcement. I have not been able to locate the illegal immigration enforcement bill that gives Federal agencies the power to ask for proof of citizenship. I would be curious to see if the law states the enforcement is strictly the Federal jurisdiction.
I heard on public radio today that many illegal immigrants are going to protest Arizona by leaving the state.
Amendment 14 Article 1 states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
ReplyDeleteNotice the word AND in the final sentence. One is a citizen of their state and of the United States. This does not mean one merely resides within a state.
Okay..found the US Cod on "Improper entry by alien" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325)
ReplyDelete(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the
purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than
$250,000, or both.
(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise
for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws
shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance
with title 18, or both.
Estrada v Rhode Island.http://www.riaclu.org/documents/Estrada1stCircuitopinion.pdf. may get play here and if it does then I see Arizona law constitutional. Thoughts...
ReplyDeleteI should make it clear that any law enforcement officer who can find reasonable suspicion of an undocumented immigrant, regardless of jurisdiction, can detain said individual and call ICE at any time.
ReplyDeleteThat's what they're for.
Chris, I give up. You just seem unwilling to accept the facts presented by 160 years judicial history on this subject.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're missing is that Dred Scot v. Sandford was about whether states had the right to define citizenship which is what southern states were doing to block slaves from citizenship and thereby voting rights.
The 14th amendment was the final and direct response to Scot v. Sandford and gives a broad definition of citizenship while also giving jurisdiction to the Federal government by defining that power as such. 160 years of case law support this fact. Therefore, all immigration policy and oversight is federal in jurisdiction - end of story.
And to Anon - yes, a police officer can detain people who are illegal but it cannot be the primary offense for which the person is stopped. The local officer can't simply pull over a truck full of mexicans on the suspicion that they are illegals. A border patrol agent can and regularly do.
I'm done discussing this here though. We'll have to agree to disagree and let the courts sort it out.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100430/cm_huffpost/557721
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas Chris. This is exactly what I was worried would come out of this stupid debate.
"It would create a national ID -- which is dubbed a "biometric social security card." Though Democrats insist that it is not an ID card and can only be used for employment purposes. "
Biometric means fingerprint, genetic code or something along that lines for ID.
And you think the government will limit how they use this information once they get their hands on it? Yeah right! Did they do so with the social security numbers?
Great job to all this bills supporters. You just made justification of a national citizen registration database possible.
Estarda doesn't come into play. The ruling does not address whether the actions of the officer did indeed violate constitutional rights. It addressed whether the officer is immune from the suit due to qualified immunity.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, the officer himself can't be sued if it was reasonable for him to conclude that his actions didn't violate rights, regardless of if they did.
Kevin..I apologize I had you mistaken for another Kevin that posts on FB. As for an national ID, I really hope cooler head prevail.
ReplyDeleteWe do need to have immigration reform and we need to apply the law to those here illegally. How we do it without putting citizens at risk is a tough thing to balance. How do we do it?
Anon..I am not so sure that we won't see Estrada v Rhode Island involved at some point.
To establish what? The case wasn't decided on whether the officer violated constitutional rights, rather that he had immunity from being sued. Anything relating to the validty of his action is dicta. The scope of the case is narrow.
ReplyDeleteChris, I assume that apology was for me. I too probably should apologize since I'm sure to have ruffled feathers here. This subject, as it relates to the constitution, not immigration itself is a very passionate one for me. I struggle with the fact that my personal beliefs (such as a harder line on immigration) sometimes conflict with what the constitution allows for.
ReplyDeleteBut in the end we must err on the side of caution with regards to legislation like the one in AZ. Because in the end, eroding our rights, even temporarily, in order to gain some personal safety is not worth the long term loss to liberty we all suffer as a result.
That's because history has proven when rights are taken away they are very rarely returned to those who held them. So we should never relinquish them in the first place - even if it means we suffer from problems that we'd rather not. Such as illegal immigration.
How do we fix it? I have no idea but you must start with a border that is secure or nothing else matters. The next step is removing economic incentives for them to come. The third is engaging those here to either become citizens through legitimate means or going home.
And a national ID should scare everyone. That's downright horrifying to me.
I agree a national ID is not the way to go. We need reform without the scare tactics. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts. Especially with other States looking to enacting their own enforcement.
ReplyDelete