Now that one of The Brotherhood has fallen ...

I don't see Scottsdale, Maricopa County, or Arizona there. I believe Scottsdale was the subject of the Article and YOU and IT insinuate that nothing was done until that cop was killed which is simply not the case.

Further, I would be very interested in a citation of this alleged law against inquiring about a detainees immigration status. The feds have given a directive that local LE agencies are to notify ICE concerning illegals they encounter. The sanctuary cities are ignoring that for a variety of reasons but there isn't a law against it that I'm aware of ,unless of course. you can provide a citation.

jimpeel said:
I am going to say this outright: Why did it take the slaying of a police officer to get the rest of them to start acting on illegal aliens?
Click to expand...
It didn't. This is a knee jerk. Jumped before you did the research.

jimpeel said:
Now that it is one of their own who has been killed they suddenly seem eager to enforce the law.
Click to expand...
It wasn't 'sudden:
From the article you cut and pasted.......
article in OP said:
That's changed, said Eduardo Preciado, an assistant ICE field officer in Phoenix. The agency was short-staffed until about a year ago when it added agents to man phones and to assist local law enforcement agencies, he said.
Click to expand...
September was 3 months ago..........

As I stated, VERY few places in the country are as unfriendly to illegals as that area. And it is a far from a sanctuary city as San Francisco is from being pro 2nd Amendment.
 
That's just a crock. If you are an average citizen of this country, I can find you in five minutes with a drivers license number, SS number,any insurance policy number,credit card number, etc.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with you there. Amidst so many things that could go wrong with the above items, why add another to the mix?

It's not the ID itself that I'm worried about, it's what the law will come up with in conjunction with its usage and enforcement in the name of our security or out of necessity that bothers me.
 
I agree with others a national ID system isn't needed, we just need to pass a law at the federal level that required immigration status check on all DL applicants.

Anyways I agree with this new policy, I have been saying for years the best way to combat the illegal immigrants that we don't want in this country is to do immigration status checks on all negative police encounters greater then a traffic stop.

Also if an illegal is found they should be jailed for the crime that they had a negative police encounter for (if guilty of course), but also serve jail time for illegally entering the country, and finally they get deported.
 
I don’t do a lot of road work anymore, but I probably arrest/cite one or two illegal aliens a month (actually had four in November). There is no real protocol for getting ICE involved and there aren’t enough of them to go around anyway [long time lag involved and it costs someone money]. There is no real state protocol for detaining illegals until such time as ICE can do their thing [long time lag involved and it costs someone money].

I arrest them (or cite and release them on scene), they go to court. There is no real protocol at the state court level for dealing with illegals either. The illegals pay their fines and are released. If there’s jail time, they do their time and are released. Barring a serious crime, probably felony or possibly a weapons charge, it’s a revolving door system.

It’s not right. It’s not good. But, it’s how the system works. Until such time as our politicians hash out a workable system that combines the state and federal level response to the issue, it ain’t gonna charge. Blaming the lack of police response on the police is blaming the wrong group. Police are limited by the policies in effect. The group you should be pointing your finger at is much higher up the food chain. That would be the policy makers.

Money is a key component of the issue. Who pays what? If the state or the local PD hangs on to the illegal until ICE shows up- who eats the cost of keeping him? If the court says to lock the illegal up in jail until such time ICE comes around to get him- who pays the associated fees incurred by the illegal’s confinement? Solve that and you can actually put a dent in the problem. Since the AZ officer was killed, the city/county government authorized a stricter policy on dealing with illegals. But, politicians have an extremely short memory, and when the bill comes due because it’s going to cost them money, that policy will likely fall by the wayside.

Trust me, many local and state police don't like the system. But, it isn't their fault. The ICE agents I know don't care much for it. Not their fault either.
 
From the 2006 Congressional Research Service Report

Sanctuary States and Cities

Current day “sanctuary cities” or “non-cooperation policies” have their roots in the 1980s religious sanctuary movement by American churches. These churches provided sanctuary to thousands of unauthorized Central American migrants fleeing civil war in their homelands. Most cities that are considered sanctuary cities have adopted a “don’t ask-don’t tell” policy where they don’t require their employees, including law enforcement officers, to report to federal officials aliens who may be illegally present in the country.

Localities, and in some cases individual police departments, in such areas that are considered “sanctuary cities,” have utilized various mechanisms to ensure that unauthorized aliens who may be present in their jurisdiction illegally are not turned in to federal authorities.[85] Some municipalities address the issue through resolutions, executive orders or city ordinances, while many police departments address the issues through special orders, departmental policy and general orders. To date, there are two statewide policies regarding providing sanctuary for unauthorized aliens. In May 2003, Alaska’s state legislature passed a joint resolution prohibiting state agencies from using resources or institutions for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws.[86] In 1987, Oregon passed a law that prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from using agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending foreign citizens based on violation of federal immigration law.[87] Oregon law, however, does permit their law enforcement officers to exchange information with federal authorities to verify the immigration status of an individual arrested for criminal offenses.
Click to expand...

[86] H.J.Res. 22, 23rd Leg., 1st sess., (Ak. 2003).

[87] Or. Rev. Stat. §181.850.
 
Bruxley

I don't see Scottsdale, Maricopa County, or Arizona there.
Click to expand...

I never said they were. I merely provided a link to a site which lists sanctuary states and cities nationwide.

Further, I would be very interested in a citation of this alleged law against inquiring about a detainees immigration status.
Click to expand...

These are internal policies of the PD and the city governments. The only actual legislation which has been passed is in AK (H.J.Res. 22, 23rd Leg., 1st sess., (Ak. 2003).) and OR (Or. Rev. Stat. §181.850.).

The fact is that just such a policy was in place in Phoenix at the time that the officer was murdered.

From the Arizona Republic 11-4-2007

Policy protocol

The Phoenix Police Department's policy bars officers from stopping people for the sole purpose of determining immigration status. It also bans officers from calling the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency about people who are crime victims or witnesses or people who have committed only minor civil offenses such as driving without a license. Officers are instructed, however, to call ICE when they encounter smuggling activity such as drophouses, where immigrants in transit are held after entering the country illegally.

ICE is also automatically notified whenever illegal immigrants are booked into jail by sheriff's officers.
Click to expand...

But they are instructed to ignore anything other than major crimes.

September was 3 months ago..........
Click to expand...

Note this:

Scottsdale police had arrested Martinez on a misdemeanor charge 16 months earlier but they released him then because they didn't know he was an illegal immigrant who had been twice deported.
Click to expand...

So if there was all of this new manpower at ICE why didn't they simply make the necessary phone call and find out about this guy before he killed the cop? Because it was not the policy to do so AT THAT TIME.
 
Thank you for finding even more information to re-enforce my point.

The premise you put out was this:
I am going to say this outright: Why did it take the slaying of a police officer to get the rest of them to start acting on illegal aliens?
Click to expand...
My point is that IT DIDN"T.

The local LE agencies in that area was ALREADY very active in balancing what they had jurisdiction for and what the Feds have reserved authority for.

The Phoenix police policy you put out doesn't forbid notifying ICE upon detention for other crime. It does state a policy that would keep them from performing Federal functions of immigration enforcement.

The other citations you gave still aren't laws against notifying Federal authorities when local law enforcement detains criminals or making it illegal to inquire about immigration status of same.

So much misinformation and so much confusion about where local enforcement ends and Federal begins. It manifests into hyperbole that it took the slaying of a police officer to start acting on illegal aliens. This is flatly untrue. There has been a vigorous effort there for some time and I challenge anyone to find an area that has been doing more. Plus they are not done. AZ actively confronts the issue and is a national leader in the fight against illegal. immigration.
 
Thank you for finding even more information to re-enforce my point
Click to expand...

You're welcome. That is why I italicized the part about higher crimes.

The part that is still screwed up is this:

The Phoenix Police Department's policy bars officers from stopping people for the sole purpose of determining immigration status. It also bans officers from calling the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency about people who are crime victims or witnesses or people who have committed only minor civil offenses such as driving without a license.
Click to expand...

From the Arizona Republic 9-19-2007:

Phoenix police Officer Nick Erfle survived two bouts of cancer to put back on his uniform and patrol the city's streets. On Tuesday, a jaywalker shot him in the face and killed him.
Click to expand...
 
If a possible employer can ask of your status on a job application than the cops should be able to "ASK"... I may have been incorrectly informed in civics class in the mid eighties... We were taught that natural born American citizens would not be required to carry "papers" but an alien would ALWAYS have to carry them.
I also know that ID can be faked. In my area we have a SEVERE problem with illegal immigrants. The sheriff dept. arrests them usually while driving and they get charged with "no drivers license" than make bail and scoot. They are also responsible for a large percentage of stolen identity. I think we need to tighten the borders up real tight than weed out the illegals by deportation. How can we implement this? I have no rational politically correct plan...
Brent
 
Papers please

This could get sticky. There is alot of potential to have a police state.
Perhaps the only time an LEO could request "proof" of citizenship would be when there has been a potential crime committed.
By giving the police authorization to "check" you out, there is bound to be errors.
Don't misconstrue what I am saying, I am all for deporting illegal immigrants.
Key word being illegal.
I just don't want to have to answer to the police for whatever they decide I should.
 
hogdogs

If a possible employer can ask of your status on a job application than the cops should be able to "ASK"...
Click to expand...

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING

WE HAVE A WINNAH!!!

That would be the ubiquitous and obligatory I-9 form we all have to fill out upon entering the service of an employer.

Click the link and have some fun as it is a pdf fill-in form and you can fill it in and print out your very own copy.
 
DSC00084.jpg


The picture of the sign is the Phoenix ordinance that prohibits PPD from asking immigration status. It is under review right now to be changed, however Mayor Gordon and Chief Harris believe it should be the status quo. We the people of Phoenix disagree. BTW, this picture was taken in front of Pruitt's furniture, the hot spot of the nation for this issue. I'm there every Sat.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
 
For the record... I am against requiring private entities to engage in law enforcement. A businessman has enuff to deal with than to also be an immigrations officer. On the same note I liken it to requiring a restaurant owner to enforce a no smoking law. I am against illegals being employed but i feel it should be curtailed at the border.
Brent
 
Hey Hogdog, being as the State is who issues the license to do business, and the government requires an I-9, where do you see the problem?

Oh, I hope you're joking about being curtailed at the border, that won't happen for years.


Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
 
kenpo, I am serious on both counts... A businessman should be able to accept an application, interview and decide to employ or not the individual. INS should (I know it ain't a realistic expectation) have limited the illegal immigrant population to such a negligible number that they ain't a factor. had we had the same strict rules of immigration and enforced as most of the world (mexico included) for the last hundred years we would not be in the boat we are in!
Brent
 
Hogdog, you must be very young and still living in the world of your Eutopian dreams.

We know it should stop at the border, in fact, we've been trying to seal the borders, stop the anchor babies, etc., etc., ad nauseaum for so many years it's ridiculous. Now that the sheer numbers have gotten out of hand, they choose to address it now.

The border won't be sealed for many years if the politicians in DC have anything to say about it. It's the border state's responsibility now that the Feds have not addressed grievances. 10th amendment baby.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
 
Kenpo, I ain't too young... 39... i know it sounds like a pipe dream but I see it much different. While the talking heads and spin doctors speak from one side of their face the other says "Thanks Guadalupe and Julio for a job well done this week" as they pay IN CASH to illegal immigrant non-employees. Yes corporate America employs oodles but the private sector employs FAR TOO MANY as well. Had we engaged the illegal at our border from a hundred years ago rather than look the other way 'cuz they were good for free enterprise... Well lets just say it is very hard to be slack on rules for our benefit than go totally "meanie" when we realize the impact of our error. Not to mention it would show out real quick when you (not you but big wheels) have not only been lax but also employed the illegal immigrant.
Brent
 
RealID is a bad idea for several reasons.

1. Unfunded mandate. The state next to me, Minnesota, doesn't know if it can afford the cost to overhaul its ID system. Corners will be cut, allowing holes to appear in the system. Many states are in the same boat.

2. It's not going to be secure. Just look at the UK. The have had at least 2 or 3 instances of confidential data being lost, not stolen, lost in the last several months. Imagine if someone was actually trying to steal the data.

One where the personal information of 25 million people was lost.

Another where the information of 3 million was lost.

Those are just two of the most recent examples.

3. People. The weakest link is going to be the people. With a national database of that magnitude, can you say for certain that all that data will be safe. With the cost cutting that will happen, people will find that they have access to allot of data. Everyone has a price, for some people it is extremely high, but it does exist. Find the right employee, offer a $10,000 bribe for 5 million records. I see this system working as well as the TSA and that really scares me. The TSA only screws with you when you fly though.

4. This is a post that I and another member on Fark.com posted. We were discussing why that the increasing Federal power is a bad thing and that things would be much better with letting the states take care of most things.

Crosshair:
Harry Pooter: Do you honestly think if drug laws were turned over to the States, anything would change whatsoever? Honestly?

Yea, quite a bit would change and for the better. Many states have legalized medical marijuana, but the feds continue to arrest cancer patients.

In my state, North Dakota, farmers want to grow hemp as a cash crop as there is a large market for hemp products in the US. As an added bonus, hemp will grow on land that won't grow other crops. This will greatly benefit the state economy. It is perfectly legal to grow hemp under North Dakota law, but the Federal DEA is being their regular anal retentive selves over the issue. This pro-hemp legislation was passed and supported by both Republicans and Democrats in the state government.

Those are just two examples of how we would be better off with more power to the states.
Click to expand...
Ghandi_Cane:

Nerd alert!
I think this makes natural sense to me due to my background as a programmer. A good analogy would be the process of class design. You start with a base class that has a few well defined rules. You may also define empty functions for derived classes to fill in as they see fit. Also, derived classes can define their own behavior not even addressed by the original base class and over which the base class has no say/control. As you move down the hierarchy, from least derived to most derived, you see a branching out of behavior. What works in one situation may not work in another, so you would use a different class.

So in this analogy the Constitution and its LIMITED federal government would be the base class. The states and their constitutions would be the derived classes. The cities and counties would further define their local laws with respect to their encompassing laws until you get down to the individual who defines his own "laws" for himself within the scope of his own life.

As anyone who's worked on a system of even moderate complexity, you run into major problems once you start putting a ton of functionality and definition into the base class. Ideally, you only define the minimum required at that level and then let the derived classes define the rest for themselves.

It's a very simple analogy, but apt, I believe. And Paul's definitely pushing for the better approach: a lighter federal government, with more responsibility delegated to the states or to the people.

/end Nerd alert
Click to expand...

As for the whole centralized database thing. Here is an open secret. A database of that magnitude is impossible, at least with current technology. When I was going to school for my degree I went and talked the the Systems Administrator for the local Hospital. Here is what he said when I asked him what software they used to centralize all the patient data.

"We don't have a centralized database, you just can't create something that massive. It would simply collapse under it's own weight. We use different software for different types of data. No program will do everything well or even do everything that needs to be done.

The best you can do is have many smaller databases and then have a program that puts all that data together so it appears as if there is one database, but even that doesn't work 100% and sometimes you have to go to the individual database to get what you need. It would be great if we could have one central database as it would make things much easier, but once you get past a certian size, it is just easier to split it up into separate databases."
Click to expand...

So yea, REAL ID is not going to work. It is doomed from the start to be a dismal failure and result in nothing but headaches and identity theft.
 
Last edited:
How do the credit card companies do it?

Everybody gets fixated on how something can't work. Can't ,can't, can't.

The ones that whine the most about illegal aliens whine the most about some system to identfy them.I'm not sold on an ID card,but the insurance policies ,credit cards, movie rental cards,drivers licenses, property tax statements, SS numbers etc that make us easy to find are things the illegals do not have . How are you going to know who is who.You have no solution just some knee jerk to an ID card and some delusion that you are somehow safer without one.
 
Last edited:
The CC companies, insurance companies, etc. are businesses. They protect their data and manage it. If the .GOV would protect their data and manage it there would be no need for realID, as it will end up like DL, SSN, and birth certificates. Easily had and easily forged.

Remember back in the day when you were a teenager and dad carried you to the DMV to get that drivers license. You had to provide SSN and birth certificate as proof (varies in some areas). If .GOV had secured the SSN system, ans the States protected the birth certificate system, then a DL would be all you need. Since the .GOV hasn't protected these, after realID starts up gung ho, eventually it will be manipulated as well.

Just my .02 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top