Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   9th Circuit to decide if Arizona's law passed by ballot initiative which forbids granting bail to any illegal immigrant arrested in the state on other charges runs afoul of a minor legal technicality called the 8th Amendment   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, 9th Circuit, legal technicality, amendments, illegal immigrants, Russell Pearce, Arizona Legislature, United States courts of appeals  
•       •       •

2920 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2014 at 1:18 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-19 03:44:04 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: See how it outlines what applies to "citizens" and what applies to "any person", indicating a clear distinction between the two?


Assessing 'flight risk' is a part of due process. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people who display prima facie evidence of ignoring border restrictions can be legally considered as flight risks, and thus detained until trial.
 
2014-03-19 03:47:11 PM  

durbnpoisn: I'm sure you're correct.  And that goes back to the whole, "The world needs ditch diggers" argument.  This is the argument that people use when they talk about illegals taking American jobs.

I'll agree with you to the extent that, "unskilled laborer" is entirely too vague a concept.  Because you're right.  If the person is willing to work, let them work.  There is no reason to deny someone citizenship if they intend to work, no matter what that job is.  I think that the idea behind them having that restriction is that there are already a gazillion people in this country legally that could be doing that job.  So why offer it to someone else?


We are a nation of immigrants. Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here. Besides which, work isn't a zero sum game. More people create more jobs.
 
2014-03-19 03:47:54 PM  

DamnYankees: I fail to see how this has anything to do with immigration. I don't know if ANYONE is a rapist or murderer or drug dealer. You might be, for all I know.


Here's how it applies. If I apply to immigrate, they do a background check, they put me on file, and so on. They know about previous criminal activities, and they know if I have any outstanding criminal wants or warrants, because that shows up on a background check.

If I come here illegally, then none of that was done.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I had a criminal past, I would expect no country would take me. THAT'S why it matters, and why should apply to immigration.
 
2014-03-19 03:49:33 PM  

gerrymander: Gecko Gingrich: See how it outlines what applies to "citizens" and what applies to "any person", indicating a clear distinction between the two?

Assessing 'flight risk' is a part of due process. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people who display prima facie evidence of ignoring border restrictions can be legally considered as flight risks, and thus detained until trial.



The flight risk determination has to be made on an individual basis.
18 U.S.C.S. § 3142(g) lays out the factors to be considered.
 
2014-03-19 03:51:24 PM  

give me doughnuts: The flight risk determination has to be made on an individual basis.
18 U.S.C.S. § 3142(g) lays out the factors to be considered.


Thank you. I knew that he was wrong, but was struggling to cite a source.
 
2014-03-19 03:51:43 PM  
Zasteva: It sounds like you imagine illegal immigrants as showing up and just lazing around eating the government cheese. That's just not how it is.

durbnpoisn: I'm sure you're correct.  And that goes back to the whole, "The world needs ditch diggers" argument.  This is the argument that people use when they talk about illegals taking American jobs.

As an employer, I don't care where a person was born. I want to know they will work hard and do a good job. I see no reason to favor someone born in Los Angeles over someone born in Mexico City. I might favor someone who lives near me verses someone blowing through town, since that helps my local economy more, and they will be more likely to care about my recommendation to other employers and their reputation around town.

dubnpoisn: I'll agree with you to the extent that, "unskilled laborer" is entirely too vague a concept.  Because you're right.  If the person is willing to work, let them work.  There is no reason to deny someone citizenship if they intend to work, no matter what that job is.  I think that the idea behind them having that restriction is that there are already a gazillion people in this country legally that could be doing that job.  So why offer it to someone else?

I'm not advocating hiring illegals per se. I'm arguing for allowing people who want the legal right to be here and work. So they'd all be here legally; at that point it's a matter of hiring the person who will best do the job. 

Fusilier: Do illegal immigrants depress wages? It is axiomatic that they are doing jobs that U.S. citizens (and legal immigrants) do not want to do............for the money that is offered. If we accept that the laws of supply and demand actually work, why will an endless supply of cheap labor not serve to keep wages low?


Yes, illegal immigrants depress wages. 

If they were given legal status, that would be less of an issue. They would be subject to minimum wage laws; and be paying into the system the same as any other worker. With their higher wages they would also generate more demand for goods and services; stimulating the economy.

I'm also not advocating lifting immigration caps overnight, but rather lifting them steadily over the course of 5 or 10 years.
 
2014-03-19 03:54:49 PM  

gerrymander: Gecko Gingrich: See how it outlines what applies to "citizens" and what applies to "any person", indicating a clear distinction between the two?

Assessing 'flight risk' is a part of due process. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people who display prima facie evidence of ignoring border restrictions can be legally considered as flight risks, and thus detained until trial.


Which is not all illegal immigrants, since roughly half entered the country legally and overstayed visas. Besides, there are other factors; the severity of the crime and expected punishment, whether the person has a family, a steady job, owns property, etc... Just saying they are undocumented doesn't establish prima facie evidence that they are a flight risk.
 
2014-03-19 03:54:53 PM  

EWreckedSean: Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here.



So long as they obey the current immigration and naturalization laws, like my ancestors did, then they have the same chance.
 
2014-03-19 03:57:36 PM  

give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here.

give me doughnuts: So long as they obey the current immigration and naturalization laws, like my ancestors did, then they have the same chance.


So you will be fine with it if we change the laws to naturalize everyone already here and allow anyone who can get here to immigrate?
 
2014-03-19 04:04:33 PM  

give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here.


So long as they obey the current immigration and naturalization laws, like my ancestors did, then they have the same chance.


The laws for our ancestors were to basically show up and be white, and take the land from it's current occupants.. We've since decided those who come after us have somehow less right to better themselves.
 
2014-03-19 04:06:01 PM  

EWreckedSean: durbnpoisn: I'm sure you're correct.  And that goes back to the whole, "The world needs ditch diggers" argument.  This is the argument that people use when they talk about illegals taking American jobs.

I'll agree with you to the extent that, "unskilled laborer" is entirely too vague a concept.  Because you're right.  If the person is willing to work, let them work.  There is no reason to deny someone citizenship if they intend to work, no matter what that job is.  I think that the idea behind them having that restriction is that there are already a gazillion people in this country legally that could be doing that job.  So why offer it to someone else?

We are a nation of immigrants. Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here. Besides which, work isn't a zero sum game. More people create more jobs.


Yes.  We are.  Legal immigrants.  Or at the very least, a nation of people that emmigrated at a time when this country wasn't an overpopulated mess, and we were happy to have new people coming in.  The process back then was, comparatively, a piece of cake.
 
2014-03-19 04:10:51 PM  

durbnpoisn: EWreckedSean: durbnpoisn: I'm sure you're correct.  And that goes back to the whole, "The world needs ditch diggers" argument.  This is the argument that people use when they talk about illegals taking American jobs.

I'll agree with you to the extent that, "unskilled laborer" is entirely too vague a concept.  Because you're right.  If the person is willing to work, let them work.  There is no reason to deny someone citizenship if they intend to work, no matter what that job is.  I think that the idea behind them having that restriction is that there are already a gazillion people in this country legally that could be doing that job.  So why offer it to someone else?

We are a nation of immigrants. Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here. Besides which, work isn't a zero sum game. More people create more jobs.

Yes.  We are.  Legal immigrants.  Or at the very least, a nation of people that emmigrated at a time when this country wasn't an overpopulated mess, and we were happy to have new people coming in.  The process back then was, comparatively, a piece of cake.


I love the concept that by luck of birth you think you have more right to be here and provide for your family than somebody else. Our ancestors didn't legally take this land from the native people, they seized it by force, and then started setting up rules for who else was allowed, largely based on skin color.
 
2014-03-19 04:12:40 PM  

Zasteva: So you will be fine with it if we change the laws to naturalize everyone already here and allow anyone who can get here to immigrate?


I'm not him, but no, I wouldn't be OK with that.
 
2014-03-19 04:14:10 PM  

gerrymander: Gecko Gingrich: See how it outlines what applies to "citizens" and what applies to "any person", indicating a clear distinction between the two?

Assessing 'flight risk' is a part of due process. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people who display prima facie evidence of ignoring border restrictions can be legally considered as flight risks, and thus detained until trial.


Given the nature of Arizona's laws for determining grounds for arrest, I'd say you're being pretty frivolous with your prima facie label, there. Again, what's effectively being done here is determining guilt prior to a trial and punishing based on that. In fact, since this is flat out law, allowing no discretion on the part of the judge (something bail is supposed to reflect,) it's assessing guilt even before the arrest. It also taints a trial, passing on that assessment of guilt to the trial itself. A person charged with illegal immigration, allowed no bail because they're considered a flight risk due to being, "already considered guilty of being an illegal immigrant," is going to walk into a trial even more condemned. No, it's bad policy, bad law and bad thinking, which is why, thank goodness, we have federal laws against it. 

In short, don't do that.
 
2014-03-19 04:18:42 PM  

Kit Fister: Zasteva: So you will be fine with it if we change the laws to naturalize everyone already here and allow anyone who can get here to immigrate?

I'm not him, but no, I wouldn't be OK with that.


Well since you weren't arguing that the only important thing is to follow the current rules, then I'm not sure what good your answer does. 

Unless you want to explain why not and get in a discussion about that point?
 
2014-03-19 04:20:26 PM  

Zasteva: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here.

give me doughnuts: So long as they obey the current immigration and naturalization laws, like my ancestors did, then they have the same chance.

So you will be fine with it if we change the laws to naturalize everyone already here and allow anyone who can get here to immigrate?


No, I would work to keep laws like that from getting passed. The likeliest out come of something like that would be a destroyed economy.


The laws for our ancestors were to basically show up and be white, and take the land from it's current occupants.. We've since decided those who come after us have somehow less right to better themselves.


Show up, be white, register with the local government, keep the documents they gave you, and stay out of trouble for ___ years.

Two important steps.
 
2014-03-19 04:21:22 PM  
Sorry, Kit Fister. That didn't quite come out right. I was trying to say that it's his answer that I'm interested in. I appreciate you stating your view and didn't mean to dismiss it or otherwise imply that your view is worthless. When I reread what I wrote I realized it sounded like I was dissing you.
 
2014-03-19 04:23:59 PM  

Zasteva: umad: [...derpderpderp]

The reason we are an exclusive club is the same reason every other country is an exclusive club. That reason is that like them, we are a soverign country.

I think you are confusing the idea of lifting immigration caps with the idea of no restrictions at all.
The problem isn't that we have requirements for immigrants; the problem is that we have arbitrary limits on the number of people who come in, regardless whether they meet the requirements or not.

A number of countries do not have caps on immigration, while still having requirements for perspective immigrants.


Requirements == exclusive club.
 
2014-03-19 04:31:08 PM  

Zasteva: Well since you weren't arguing that the only important thing is to follow the current rules, then I'm not sure what good your answer does.

Unless you want to explain why not and get in a discussion about that point?


Basically, the way I see it, is that there has to be controls on immigration. Whatever happened in the past happened in the past. As of RIGHT NOW, I'd much rather NOT throw open the doors to anyone that could get here by hook or by crook, because I'd be leery of the types of folks who would come here under false pretenses or even to cause trouble.

Not everyone is interested in immigrating because they want a better life. Some people want to immigrate because they see a land of riches and they would rather take that dishonestly rather than work hard for it.
 
2014-03-19 04:33:59 PM  
give me doughnuts: Zasteva: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here.

give me doughnuts: So long as they obey the current immigration and naturalization laws, like my ancestors did, then they have the same chance.

Zasteva: So you will be fine with it if we change the laws to naturalize everyone already here and allow anyone who can get here to immigrate?

give me doughnuts: No, I would work to keep laws like that from getting passed. The likeliest outcome of something like that would be a destroyed economy.


Our population is growing at the slowest rate since the 1930s, 0.7% per year. Sure, if we opened the flood gates all at once it would be a bad thing. But I think we can gradually lift the caps. 

More people means more demand for goods and services. Especially if those people can participate fully in the economy.


EWreckedSean: The laws for our ancestors were to basically show up and be white, and take the land from it's current occupants.. We've since decided those who come after us have somehow less right to better themselves.

give me doughnuts: Show up, be white, register with the local government, keep the documents they gave you, and stay out of trouble for ___ years. Two important steps.


I'm fine with requiring people to register on entry, and deporting them if they commit a violent crime or any kind of felony before they get citizenship. What I want to see are an end to the arbitrary caps.


Anyway, it seems your position is not just "follow the laws" but also "not too many, please".
 
2014-03-19 04:36:56 PM  

umad: Zasteva: umad: [...derpderpderp]

The reason we are an exclusive club is the same reason every other country is an exclusive club. That reason is that like them, we are a soverign country.

I think you are confusing the idea of lifting immigration caps with the idea of no restrictions at all.
The problem isn't that we have requirements for immigrants; the problem is that we have arbitrary limits on the number of people who come in, regardless whether they meet the requirements or not.

A number of countries do not have caps on immigration, while still having requirements for perspective immigrants.

Requirements == exclusive club.


Fair enough.
 
2014-03-19 04:38:32 PM  
Wouldn't be a simple matter of considering them an automatic flight risk.  I mean, if they are unlawfully in the US and accused of a crime, the fact that they have no official ties to the US means that they are less inclined to participate in the judicial process if they are released.  Bail is used to compel an individual to participate in the judicial process, and for certain crimes and individuals no bail is granted because no amount is seen as being sufficient to ensure they return to the court if allowed released. Furthermore, the fact that they are within the country illegally means that releasing them back to the public would allow them to continue to violate this aspect of the law (whether civil or criminal offense) therefore the act of granting bail could be aiding and abetting the illegal act.  Once the individual is in custody, both aspects of their custody (criminal offense, and status to remain in the US) should be adjudicated before they are released (assuming they are granted a right to remain).
 
2014-03-19 04:46:02 PM  

EWreckedSean: durbnpoisn: EWreckedSean: durbnpoisn: I'm sure you're correct.  And that goes back to the whole, "The world needs ditch diggers" argument.  This is the argument that people use when they talk about illegals taking American jobs.

I'll agree with you to the extent that, "unskilled laborer" is entirely too vague a concept.  Because you're right.  If the person is willing to work, let them work.  There is no reason to deny someone citizenship if they intend to work, no matter what that job is.  I think that the idea behind them having that restriction is that there are already a gazillion people in this country legally that could be doing that job.  So why offer it to someone else?

We are a nation of immigrants. Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here. Besides which, work isn't a zero sum game. More people create more jobs.

Yes.  We are.  Legal immigrants.  Or at the very least, a nation of people that emmigrated at a time when this country wasn't an overpopulated mess, and we were happy to have new people coming in.  The process back then was, comparatively, a piece of cake.

I love the concept that by luck of birth you think you have more right to be here and provide for your family than somebody else. Our ancestors didn't legally take this land from the native people, they seized it by force, and then started setting up rules for who else was allowed, largely based on skin color.


That is a completely different, and completely outdated argument.
Is it wrong that Europe walked in and took over the land from those that they considered "uncivilized"?  Of course.  But what other friggin way would it have gone?  There is pretty much no way to stop an industrialized society from spreading, and quickly.  Unfortunately, those that are not as industrialized tend to get pushed out.  It sucks.  But that's the way it happens even today.

It's actually kind of a curious point that every society on the other side of both major oceans were busy industrializing themselves for centuries.  But the people that lived here, given the same amount of time, didn't do that.  Or the ones that did, or tried (like the Mayans, for instance), ended up collapsing on themselves.  That's why they got conquered.  And this is NOT the only country where that happened.  In fact, it's happened everywhere.
 
2014-03-19 04:47:45 PM  

Kit Fister: Zasteva: Well since you weren't arguing that the only important thing is to follow the current rules, then I'm not sure what good your answer does.

Unless you want to explain why not and get in a discussion about that point?

Basically, the way I see it, is that there has to be controls on immigration. Whatever happened in the past happened in the past. As of RIGHT NOW, I'd much rather NOT throw open the doors to anyone that could get here by hook or by crook, because I'd be leery of the types of folks who would come here under false pretenses or even to cause trouble.


I agree there should be controls. Especially on people with criminal histories. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. And we should deport people who commit serious crimes during a probationary period of a few years. 

What I want to end is the arbitrary caps that most types of immigrants are subject too.

I want to make it easy enough to immigrate if you are legit that anyone who is trying to sneak across the border is obvious someone we really don't want here.

Not everyone is interested in immigrating because they want a better life. Some people want to immigrate because they see a land of riches and they would rather take that dishonestly rather than work hard for it.

I'm sure that's true. Of course, it's hard to see why they would want to come to a country with a strong legal system, relatively low corruption, and lots of crime-fighting capabilities rather than stay in their own where they can employ those tactics more easily. Unless they've already gotten rich in their country; but we let those guys in already regardless. If you've got a million dollars to invest you currently have no trouble getting a visa.
 
2014-03-19 04:57:57 PM  

durbnpoisn: That's why they got conquered.  And this is NOT the only country where that happened.  In fact, it's happened everywhere.


Oh for the love of...

If you want to make some sort of argument about how conquest is what it is and we can't change it, that's fine. There's an argument there.

But please, PLEASE stop talking about specific things about which you appear to have no knowledge. First of all, it was the Aztecs and Incas, not the Mayans, who got conquered - the Mayans peaked about 500 years before the Spanish ever got there. Secondly, the Aztec's got conquered mostly because they all died of smallpox right before the major battle. It was a historical fluke, a freak interplay of biology which has nothing to do with the failure of the Indians to 'industrialize' themselves - the European industrial revolution didn't even happen until 300 years after the Spanish conquest of the Americas.
 
2014-03-19 05:19:27 PM  

DamnYankees: But please, PLEASE stop talking about specific things about which you appear to have no knowledge



Area man passionate defender of what he imagines history to be?
 
2014-03-19 05:25:57 PM  

give me doughnuts: DamnYankees: dkendr: The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.

How can someone be in a country illegally? Is there a law saying "if you do not comply with immigration procedures, your presence on American territory is, in and of itself, a crime?"

No, but there should be.


Hey, everyone, the new legal standard of 'well, it SHOULD be that way!'
 
2014-03-19 05:39:35 PM  
A

PsiChick: give me doughnuts: DamnYankees: dkendr: The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.

How can someone be in a country illegally? Is there a law saying "if you do not comply with immigration procedures, your presence on American territory is, in and of itself, a crime?"

No, but there should be.

Hey, everyone, the new legal standard of 'well, it SHOULD be that way!'


.......and the Justice Department will only enforce the laws and regulations that it agrees with.
 
2014-03-19 07:02:30 PM  
durbnpoisn:
Yes.  We are.  Legal immigrants.  Or at the very least, a nation of people that emmigrated at a time when this country wasn't an overpopulated mess, and we were happy to have new people coming in.  The process back then was, comparatively, a piece of cake.

Overpopulated mess?  You don't get out much, do you?  There is so much open space in the USA it'll make your head spin.
 
2014-03-19 09:28:57 PM  
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these"


JackieRabbit: The rights afforded us by the constitution are meant only for American citizens and foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority (The US State Department).


You farking sicken me.
 
2014-03-19 10:04:09 PM  
It's comical how the anti-immigration crowd tries to maintain their stance without admitting its all about racism.
 
2014-03-19 11:15:20 PM  
so ?? whats your point ? racism or not , they arent subject to the same rights as we are so i say hang em and then let meh-he-co bury them ...
 
2014-03-20 12:48:46 AM  

jwmc1971: so ?? whats your point ? racism or not , they arent subject to the same rights as we are so i say hang em and then let meh-he-co bury them ...


How do you figure?
 
2014-03-20 05:50:11 AM  

jwmc1971: so ?? whats your point ? racism or not , they arent subject to the same rights as we are so i say hang em and then let meh-he-co bury them ...


Except that generally speaking they do have the same rights we do. At least in the areas of due process and equal protection under law. This has been established by the Supreme Court starting as far back as the late 1800s.

Educate yourself:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm
 
2014-03-20 09:15:24 AM  
Since when do liberals give a crap about the pesky bill of rights? Sure don't care when it is the 1st, 2nd, or 4th, why care about the 8th?
 
2014-03-20 09:23:08 AM  

Thunderpipes: Since when do liberals give a crap about the pesky bill of rights? Sure don't care when it is the 1st, 2nd, or 4th, why care about the 8th?


I'm confused. Are you saying that conservatives can ignore Rights they don't like because liberals do too? Or are you trying to imply that conservatives are better than liberals because conservatives don't ignore any of the Rights...except when they do? Like in this situation.
 
2014-03-20 09:55:54 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: DamnYankees: But please, PLEASE stop talking about specific things about which you appear to have no knowledge


Area man passionate defender of what he imagines history to be?


Yeah with all his pesky "Facts" and stuff.
 
2014-03-20 12:54:50 PM  

Frederick: It's comical how the anti-immigration crowd tries to maintain their stance without admitting its all about racism.


It's comical how the pro-illegal-immigration crowd tries to maintain their stance without admitting it's all about hating poor people. Who really gives a shiat if we flood them with competition, which drives the wages for unskilled and uneducated labor through the floor? I'm not unskilled. I'm not uneducated. Fark them, I've got mine.
 
2014-03-20 08:41:18 PM  

umad: Frederick: It's comical how the anti-immigration crowd tries to maintain their stance without admitting its all about racism.

It's comical how the pro-illegal-immigration crowd tries to maintain their stance without admitting it's all about hating poor people. Who really gives a shiat if we flood them with competition, which drives the wages for unskilled and uneducated labor through the floor? I'm not unskilled. I'm not uneducated. Fark them, I've got mine.


There are several problems with your post:

1) Who claims to be pro illegal immigration?  Cite names.
2) If competition for labor is your sticking point, then certainly you are far more worried about US corporations off-shoring jobs, to India for example, and support greater taxes on that labor to balance the employment field.  Right?
3) If Americans, who already know our language, geography, educated in our schools, have families and support systems in place to help them cannot compete with immigrants for jobs in the US, then it is not the immigrants to blame.
 
Displayed 39 of 139 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report