Was Arizona’s controversial immigration law a small step toward fulfilling The 2008 Democratic

[jody]

National Platform, RENEWING AMERICA’S PROMISE?

We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. The American people are a welcoming and generous people, but those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law. We need to secure our borders, and support additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology on the border and at our ports of entry. We need additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better technology and real-time intelligence. We need to dismantle human smuggling organizations, combating the crime associated with this trade. We also need to do more to promote economic development in migrant-sending nations, to reduce incentives to come to the United States illegally. And we need to crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. It’s a problem when we only enforce our laws against the immigrants themselves, with raids that are ineffective, tear apart families, and leave people detained without adequate access to counsel. We realize that employers need a method to verify whether their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States, and we will ensure that our system is accurate, fair to legal workers, safeguards people’s privacy, and cannot be used to discriminate against workers.

[babylonsister]

1. No... "Administration seeks employer sanctions review"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x319267

[harkadog]

3. So the adminstration wants the employers to have the right to employ illegals

Quite the opposite of the platform.

[babylonsister]

6. Just wow. That's what you got out of that? OK then. nt

[harkadog]

7. I noticed like just wow that you couldn't answer it.

Arizona has had a business death penalty law for a couple years (not the law being currently talked about) that is before the SC court at your link. A business will get the death penalty in AZ if they employ an illegal. What exactly is wrong with that? OK then.

[babylonsister]

9. Read what was posted. The fed gov't does not want the state gov't

determining what's going on because they are so ill-equipped to do so.

In asking the Supreme Court to take the employer sanctions case, the Obama administration said federal immigration law expressly pre-empts any state law imposing sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants. The administration added that if Arizona businesses knowingly use illegal immigrants, the businesses can have any of their state licenses suspended or revoked.

What are you babbling about? This admin is not against fining employers, but they are into keeping the rights of the immigrants in mind. You apparently are not.

[harkadog]

10. How is the state "so ill-equipped to do so"

The state and local authorities have a much better ability than the federal government to know what local businesses may be employing illegals. Why wouldn't they? And what has the federal government been doing about it --- exactly nothing! What rights do the illegal immigrants have that the administration is worried about concerning this law? The right to be employed?!

[babylonsister]

11. So you defend the gov of AZ and the can of worms she has opened up.

Got it.

Just for grins, if Napolitano was still in that position, how would you feel? I imagine she would have approached this differently.

[harkadog]

15. Ahhh Napolitano was the governor when this law went into effect.

Now has your position changed? She signed the law in July, 2007. Pesky thing those facts.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. People don't understand that the 2007 employer sanctions law and SB1070 are 2 different things

IMHO there has been too little coverage of this move by business groups and the WH to protect illegal employers because that's exactly what it is.

[Vattel]

13. Notice the change in topic.

you;re suggestion that the Obama Administration wants businesses to have the right to hire persons illegally residing in the United States is proven false. So you conveniently change the topic.

[harkadog]

14. If you are able to read posts no topic was changed.

Arizona wants to stop businesses from employing illegal residents. The Obama administration is asking the court to stop the law. What was proved false? And what topic was changed?

[Vattel]

17. Oh, you are sticking to your ridiculous claim

that "the Obama Administration wants businesses to have the right to hire illegals." How plucky.

[harkadog]

19. Apparently you are unable to read the OP

What is your explanation for the position of the Justice Department? BTW Janet Napolitano supported and signed this law into effect when she was governor here. It would have helped her beat McCain when she was planning to run against him for Senator but Obama took her away.

[ProSense]

2. Question:

How does a law that goes beyond existing law to infringe on people's civil rights constitute a small step toward enforcing immigration law?

[harkadog]

4. Question:

How does the law "go beyond existing law to infringe on people's civil rights"?

[ProSense]

5. "How does the law 'go beyond existing law to infringe on people's civil rights'? "

It doesn't. It's a great law. It should be adopted in every state.

People who critized it are out of their minds. Jan Brewer is a great civil rights leader.

[harkadog]

8. Another person who hasn't read the law and thus can't answer a simple question.

Well you are in good company. Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and President Obama have all said they haven't read it.

[Vattel]

12. Well, for example,

it prohibits the release of any person who is arrested until his or her immigration status is determined.

[harkadog]

16. That is copied from federal immigration law

If there is reasonable suspicion that the person is not in the country legally they can be detained until the status is determined. As in the federal law.

[Vattel]

18. Good try,

but the new Arizona law requires any person who is arrested to be held until his immigration status is determined. Read it.

[harkadog]

20. I have it in front of me.

You don't know federal immigration law do you? The state law is no different.

[Vattel]

21. Well, then,

quote me the federal law that requires anyone who is arrested to be held until their immigration status is established.

[harkadog]

22. Sorry I won't let you change the wording of the law

You can get away with that with people who don't know what the law says but not with me. The law does not say "anyone" it says "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States". That came from 8 USC 1357(a)(1); 8CFR 287.5(a). "Reasonable Suspicion" comes from 8 CFR 287.8(b) which codifies constitutional case law on the subject. If you have a problem with 'reasonable suspicion' it has been the standard of the federal government and all 50 states since 1968. A little late to start complaining about it now in one state.

[Vattel]

23. I'm not changeing the wording. You need to reread the law,

[Vattel]

24. Here is the text and my source.

"Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released."

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_asamendedbyhb2162.doc.htm