When somebody says that it mirrors federal law, shouldn’t it be exactly the same, is it?
NO! NO! NO!…those are just talking points used by the people who wrote it, a lot of people just go by what they hear without doing their own research and repeat it making other believe it’s true.
Senat Bill SB1070
1. This statute includes provisions that are not only new to Arizona law, but that are new to American criminal and immigration law. The statute is complex and raises many difficult issues both of interpretation and constitutionality. It may involve more provisions of the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions than any single piece of legislation ever drafted in this state. Accordingly, its scope and effect are not clear, and will not be clear until there are definitive judicial rulings.
Do conservatives really think new AZ immigration law is just like federal law?
Conservative media have claimed that parts of Arizona’s new immigration law are similar to federal law and that, therefore, the law should not be controversial. In fact, the immigration enforcement powers given to local law enforcement under the legislation represent a dramatic departure from current policies and would, according to many experts, lead to racial profiling, strained police resources, and distrust of law enforcement within the immigrant community.
Why does it count if it mirrors federal regulation? It would not as long because it produces outcomes! each and every physique who would not carry a skill to discover their self is an fool! once you’re a citizen and can tutor it what’s the subject? Whats that gonna do? Take 10 minutes out of your day? recover from yourselves! what’s the ethnicity of the time-honored public of illegals coming over the Mexican border……. who the hell else are you going to question? And in case you’re right here illegally then your opinion would not count anyhow, you at the instant are not a freaking American! provide up having marches such as you’re an American! I wager if the police ran the names of the persons at those marches the quantity of illegals the might discover dazzling. in case you desire to be a citizen then get in line in the back of everyone else! I say save the regulation and supply up giving them incentive to come again over right here! not extra loose housing, nutrition, artwork, or the rest! How does the announcing pass? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck then wager what? Its probable a damn duck!
Yes it does, That was the only reason you asked question was to post your own bias answers toni.
The debate over Arizona’s “new immigration law” is unavoidable.
What you might find surprising is that the “law” really isn’t new after all. The “law” is, in fact, a restatement of Federal Immigration Law first passed in the mid 1980′s. Yep, the “new law” is based on a law that is 25 years old. The original law was passed in the 1980′s in the hope of providing a “legal frame work” for keeping our borders secure. The “frame work” has obviously failed.
You can read the actual 2010 Arizona Statute or law, word for word, here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bi…
Please, take the time to actually read the law. It is only 5 pages long and contains 7 sections.
You might be surprised by the fact that this “immigration law” is directed at outlining what types of documentation are required to claim various types of Federal Social Assistance Benefits. Benefits available to “legal US residents” only and the various penalties for falsely claiming to be entitled to those benefits. The law also outlines the penalities to be applied to State Employees and their Supervisors for failing to report identified benefit fraud. (Section 1 & 2 of the 7 Section Law).
By the way, did you know that the Democratic Congress that passed the law that contained the original language (back in 1985/1986) also passed an “illegal alien amnesty program”? I didn’t think so – the Press is silent on that point. That “amnesty” program failed miserably, because 25 years later, after admitting millions of illegals in the mid 1980′s and after admitting an additional 1 million “legal” immgrants every year since, we still have 20 million “illegal aliens” residing, “unlawfully” in the Country. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/washin…
There have been a number of significantly false and out right preposterous claims made about the “new” law in Arizona. (Top 10 dumbest things said about the Arizona immigration law: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinio… )
The law does not prohibit immigration into Arizona. Arizona, as one of our 50 States, does not create Immigration Laws or Immigration Quotas. Immigration Laws and Quotas are made or set by the US Congress
I am appalled at the ignorant replies to this question. Yes, it absolutely DOES mirror Federal law which is EXACTLY the reason the Federal government is suing the state. The grounds for the lawsuit does not mention racism. The state of Arizona is being sued for trying to enforce the FEDERAL law. The government is basically saying, it’s their job to enforce the immigration laws, not Arizona’s or any other state.
No it does not mirror the language of the law. What it does do is .. mirrors the wording dealing with the infractions, and what can be done with that infraction. Where it differs though, is in the part that makes the Federal Law the supreme law of the land.
This will get you going where you want to go on the US Law.
It mirrors in the fact that it does not create new standards for immigration, it uses current federal law to define status. It does not overeach anything the border patrol does not already do. In fact, a border patrol agent has much more freedom in making arrests based on status than the local law enforcement will have.
It is interesting to know that the supreme court ruled that the border patrol can use apparent heritage as part of their reasonable suspicion.
It may add some items, but those are generally not directly related to immigration. Stopping to hire somebody, for example, has nothing to do with immigration status of either party, and actually goes after the person hiring, not the prospective employee.
no – if something mirrors another, it should be exactly the same, SB10170 is not the same it has new provisions in it, so it’s bogus that it mirrors federal law.
in some respects yes, in other respects no
(it’s sorta funny how greasytony criticizes people using talking points, but has cut&paste comments in his responses)
Yes, read the laws and see for yourself.
Yes, it absolutley does. Weak minded people automatically jump to calling things, situations, and people racists. It is a last ditch effort. Now, if you want to know about laws that go against federal law then you should look into amnesty cities. Funny, Obama is not suing those states/cities…..