[Psudo]

The US federal government can deport an alien residing in the USA for lacking the legal right of entry and no other crime. I think this proves it:

Cornell Law wrote:

Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens:

It goes on to list various circumstances under which an alien becomes deportable, which mostly have to do with violation of immigration law and misuse of immigration status, but also include smuggling, marriage fraud, and other crimes and deceits.

However, it's my understanding that state police are specifically banned from enforcing federal laws. Also, states cannot regulate immigration directly as it is constitutionally reserved as a federal power. Thus, state cops were legally restricted from doing anything about illegal immigration except wait for the feds to show up.

The new Arizona immigration law made it the crime of trespassing to be on public property without legal standing to be in the country, thus allowing state police to arrest illegal aliens on a state charge and then turn them over to federal immigration agents. It also required state peace officers and local agencies to cooperate to some extent, banning sanctuary cities and the like.

Incidentally, the feds tend to use county jails to hold detainees while organizing their hearings or transportation. If there's no room at the county jail (a common problem), immigration detainees are often released to make room for more dangerous criminals. Thus, the state cops have to wait for the feds, and the feds don't necessarily have anyplace to hold immigration violators. Arizona's new law provided a fund (with the acronym GIT EM) to help county jails afford the space needed for detention of illegal immigrants, and it seems the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is looking to expand their own specialized detention capability that will look less like a common county jail.

[Voyager]

Psudo wrote:

Voyager wrote:

That being said, while the US immigration laws need and overhaul, what is the point if nobody will follow them?

Arizona changed their enforcement policy in such a way that perhaps the laws will be enforced. If it works, let the rest of the country follow their example.

Well, the way it works is if AZ police find an illegal alien, then they are handed over to the INS, given that the Federal Government has jurisdiction. Thing is, the Federal Government has said that it does not intend to process any IA's detained under AZ's new law. As I understand it, AZ has no authority to deport IA's or to detain them longer than it takes to determine that they are IA's and hand them over to the INS. To top it off, the AG is talking about suing AZ to get them to repeal the law.

What's the point of having laws, if you're just going to get kicked down a well for following them?

[Crosshair]

Great strip. Finaly got me to register for the forum.

Agree or disagree, at least Arizona is TRYING to address the problem. Though at times it seems that they are flinging poo at a wall to see what sticks. The Federal government seems to talk about the problem as if it doesn't exist.

Quote:

That being said, while the US immigration laws need and overhaul, what is the point if nobody will follow them?

That's a problem with a lot of our laws. They are never enforced, because if they were our society would no longer function.

Politicians love to pass feel-good laws to address non-problems or problems that they created, but never want to address real problems.

[Psudo]

Voyager wrote:

the Federal Government has said that it does not intend to process any IA's detained under AZ's new law.

I doubt such a policy of selective law enforcement is legal. It's certainly not just. Even if it is legal, it's a federal policy that is only one bad poll or one poor election showing away from change.

Voyager wrote:

the AG is talking about suing AZ to get them to repeal the law.

Having read it (unlike some), I doubt he can devise a legal argument that'll hold water, but even if he can it'll take years and only remove some tiny aspect of the new law. He can't take out SB1070 in it's entirety; too much of it is clearly legal.

Crosshair wrote:

That's a problem with a lot of our laws. They are never enforced, because if they were our society would no longer function.

Do you have some specific example(s) in mind of laws on the books that, if enforced, would prevent society from functioning?

Crosshair wrote:

Politicians love to pass feel-good laws to address non-problems or problems that they created, but never want to address real problems.

This definitely happens, but I think it's rarer than commonly believed.

Crosshair wrote:

North Dakota, Canadas Mexico

Hahaha! So true.

[Cernex]

Is Felipe, not Phillipe, and you have actually feautured him before on your comics before, JJ

I would say something else... buw why would I? In reality, most people tend to forget they're not called "illegal immigrants" because they're LEGAL, and they're people around the world (well, Canada and USA mostly) that fight against all grasps of STANDARD COMMON SENSE to twist that into some forsm of bizarre "legality" that really boogles my mind. Illegal means just that: ILLEGAL, and even if you try to spin it endlessly, it steal means ILLEGAL.

HOWEVER, I'm not that sure that the Arizona bill handled the whole thing correctly at that. I can't quite put my finger on it, though, but it really seems that in the end it will open more windows for out-right (and legal) racism than actually fixing the problem...

That's what I think, at least.

Also, didn't now we were now represnted by a bunch of green goop, xD. The more you know, I guess.

[Psudo]

Voyager wrote:

Well, the way it works is if AZ police find an illegal alien, then they are handed over to the INS, given that the Federal Government has jurisdiction. Thing is, the Federal Government has said that it does not intend to process any IA's detained under AZ's new law.

And now they say they will take Arizona's referrals. link

[Bacardi4206]

Psudo wrote:

haha, yeah, PostFactum. Someday it'll be the True North States of Mexico, one huge, roughly triangular nation covering Alaska to Newfoundland to the Yucatan. Conveniently, it cuts the combined 5,000 miles of US land borders down to only about 700 at the south of Mexico. (Wait... does Canada have borders with Russia or Greenland?)

Dropping the humor a moment, the illegal immigration issue seems to focus around what possible immigration policy can be safe, fair, and pragmatically enforceable? The current US system dramatically fails at "enforceable" (except maybe in Arizona), and from the sounds of it the Canadian visa requirement fails at "fair" (since it targets a specific country rather than traits or criteria).

Also, the worry about increased immigration from Mexico to Canada is due to an increase of "from 2,550 in 2005 to 9,309" in 2009. 7,000 immigrants a year is a problem!? It's estimated that the United States has 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants, or about 1,400 years worth at Canada's rate.

It sure is a crazy world.

Well, when all other countries take advantage of Canadian kindness by immigrating on bogus refugee claims in large numbers. Than they all can be treated fair in regards to this. This has nothing to do with targeting a specific country, it's targeting a specific flaw in our way of doing things. Like taking in any refugee looking to escape hardship from another country and setting them up. Those who apparently mostly abuse this system are Mexicans. Therefor the "unfair" targeting of them.

As well, 7, 000 new illegal immigrants from America's point of view wouldn't be a problem however as stated in your own comment. America has over 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants. To my understanding, a quite large portion. Maybe even 30-35% being Mexican. All this due to a rather flawed immigration policy in the states. As stated in the article, America experienced this problem first and tried to deal with it and diddn't win. Now it's happening to Canada and Canada is looking to take America as a example and fix upon the mistakes it made. Not following in it's footsteps and hope for a better outcome. 7, 000 new illegal immigrants now but I am sure that will drop with these new crackdowns. I am glad as it may be 7, 000 now but what about next year or the year after? Being fair has nothing to do with anything, whats unfair is people abusing a system created for people who really need to escape there situation and look for refuge. Most likely in a life threatening situation

[Psudo]

Bacardi4206 wrote:

This has nothing to do with targeting a specific country, it's targeting a specific flaw in our way of doing things.

The fairness complaint isn't with the principle of declaring safe countries, but specifically in declaring Mexico a safe country. Given it's recent history of drug wars and gang violence, maybe declaring it a "safe" country has more to do with finding any excuse to clamp down on Mexican immigration than with principled reform of the refugee system. If so, that'd be an unfair, targeted inconsistency.