Friday, July 30, 2010

Immigration Futures: Arizona Law Placed On-Hold

Just hours before the new Arizona Immigration law would go into effect, a federal judge placed the heart of the law on hold. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton placed a hold on law enforcement checking the immigration status of any person detained for a crime; by also placing on-hold the requirement for immigrants to carry citizenship status documents. The other item she temporarily stopped is the ban on soliciting employment in public places as day laborers do, in most cases, impeding traffic while acknowledging that there are problems with border security.

What I am in conflict with is her ruling pertaining to immigrants not carrying their papers to prove their status, when federal rules and regulations all ready requires all immigrants to carry their papers on them at all times. Does her ruling supersede this regulation, or is there going to be a debate over this? This lawsuit is beginning to raise issues that will complicate the proceedings and guarantee a date with the Supreme Court. One must monitor their actions to insure that their decisions or judgment does not adversely affect or defeat the purpose of what they are attempting to correct, such as a judge over immigration issues.

I believe that most people can agree with being in the following situation or know someone who has been in this situation at one time or another. You are stopped by a law enforcement officer, he ask you for your license and registration so that he can see proof that you are who you say you are and that you vehicle is registered with the state. He asks you to stand by while he runs a check on you and or write you a ticket. Once he gets into his vehicle and make a call to "central" to validate your information using the number on your card, your address and if necessary, your date of birth. Even if you are a pedestrian, he will have you to stand by until he runs this check. The response comes back that you have no warrants, and no priors, but he suspects that you are not supposed to be in the area. So when he returns to you he asks you specifically for the reason that you are in the area.

Now, let's change the criteria of the situation. All is the same except that you do not have your driver's license or state identification to produce when the officer ask to see it. Now the cop's query goes in a different direction because he has no way of validating you and now he is even more suspicious of you being here. He notices your nervousness, voices his observation to you jokingly, and continues with more questions.

You are required to present some form of identification or face the possibility of being detained until proper identification can be made. Normally, you are expected to get your identification by the time you are 18 years of age, and present it whenever law enforcement request to see it during the course of their duties. However, some law enforcement agents, depending on the situation, do not enforce it, and allow you to proceed.

During this contact, the officer used your I.D. to verify your residence, your age, and if you are here legally (at this present location). Every citizen of the United States are required to have a document of birth (not on their person at all times), and some form of identification (on their person at all times) in the form of a state identification card or driver’s license.

An immigrant is required by federal law to keep with them at all times documents showing their immigration status. If the immigrant has been issued a green card showing residency status, whether permanent or temporary, he is required to have it on his person or immediately available. If they do not have such papers, they are to be detained until proof can be provided. Most times an enforcement agent will not request to see an immigrant's documents unless he either all ready know their status or suspect that they are here illegally.

What is the difference in what the Arizona law requires compared to the requirements of the federal immigration law? The answer is the agency that is enforcing the law and who created the law. Federal laws and regulations are supposed to be enforced and followed by every state of the union but are wrong if they decide to add their own provisions. The federal government, the Mexican government, and the other opponents of the Arizona law know this, can see this, but still want the law of the land to be broken. Racial profiling is not a matter of question, but a reality because the biggest illegal immigrant population in the United States is of Hispanic or Latino descent. The majorities of the Arizona law opponents are either Hispanic Latino descendants, have ties to the Mexican government, have ties to a drug cartel, or feel that there is similarity to the days of black slavery, the holocaust or have political value.

The Mexican government is preparing for a large influx of its citizens returning because of SB 1070 whether it is overturned or actually goes into effect. Is this what they are afraid of, the influx or the pressures of being forced to uphold its responsibilities to its citizens? The United States has taken on this job for far too long.

If Arizona’s immigration law goes from being blocked to being ruled unconstitutional, this will open the door for the supposed “federal immigration amnesty” that is in the rumor mill. That would mean at least a few million plus possible instant citizens, but it will also present new problems by making changes to portions of the immigration issue that the opponents of the law were using to get it permanently blocked. One possible future is that the new citizens will decide that their current earnings are not enough, and they do not have to take the jobs no one else wants any more.

Why would they want to when they are now citizens? “I am an American now, and I demand to be paid like an Americans” just might become their battle cry. This will mean a rise in prices for the consumer items they were producing because the employer would need to increase his prices to meet his payroll and production costs.

In another possible reality where law enforcement can not ask for immigration documents based off suspicion while performing their duties, employers will no longer be required to affirm immigration status for employment. They would just have to go off the word of the person that is seeking employment at their business.

In a final reality or alternate universe, English will no longer be the national language spoken or written in the United States, making it easier for illegals to hide. There would be no need for sanctuary cities or any other type of safe haven. Quietly and openly Mexico’s citizens and criminals have out-populated the United States majority, and non-violently invaded our nation by electing Hispanic or Latin-born politicians into key government positions. All of this happened because of the "unofficial open" southern border, and no real enforcement to keep the illegals out of the country.

Where did it all start? Who foresaw the quiet invasion of the United States? Who was it that gave Mexico the key allowing not only illegal Hispanic and Latinos into the country, but possibly disguised terrorist as well? It started before SB 1070, but 1070 was the catalyst of the above possible futures taking place. The main people responsible, in my opinion, would be our government for letting Mexico strong-arm them. Mexico and its citizens will be the most benefited if we can not come to terms and forge a strong immigration reform.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

My Headlines

Love Relates BlogRoll