(Mexican President) Calderón Blasts Arizona Immigration

gangrene · May 19, 2010

From the DMN: Calderón blasts Arizona immigration law during White House visit

Some comments from the article that I found of particular interest:

Mexican President Felipe Calderón, arriving at the White House for a state visit, wasted no time today criticizing Arizona's new immigration law as unfair and discriminatory.

My mother always told me "life's not fair" - so what? Lots of laws are "unfair," deal with it.

Obama vowed to work with the Mexican government to create jobs, fight drug cartels, and "ensure that our common border is secure, modern and efficient, including immigration that is orderly and safe."

Mr. President, I believe you forgot to mention one key word; how about legal?

"We can do so with a community that will promote a dignified life and an orderly way for both our countries," Calderón said, adding in English: "Can we overcome these challenges? Can we build that future of prosperity we want for our people? Yes, we can, if we work together."

Translation - Mexico wants the US to wholly fund the immigration battle, just like the drug war, so corrupt Mexican officials can pocket the majority of those funds and do very little to actually correct the problem. Mexico is home to several of the world's wealthiest people, yet they continue to allow greed and corruption to keep a large percentage of their population living in shacks and extreme poverty.

By some estimates, one-tenth of Mexico's population resides in the United States without permission.

So, 10% of Mexico's population lives in the US illegally? Nice. Remind me again, why is it "discriminatory" to ask Mexicans for proof of lawful US residency??

Meanwhile, to make the Mexican delegation feel welcome, the State Department was poised to announce it is speeding up delivery of long-delayed aircraft promised under the $1.3 billion Mérida Initiative — a pact hammered out by Calderón and President George W. Bush more than three years ago.

Two Bell-412 helicopters will be delivered in October. The Defense Department and Coast Guard will deliver four maritime patrol/surveillance aircraft in the last quarter of 2011. And three Blackhawk helicopters will be delivered in September 2011, two years and two months earlier than anticipated just a month ago.

Calderón has complained repeatedly to U.S. officials that the delays have hampered the Mexican government's fight against drug cartels, a stated priority of his administration since he took office in late 2006 — a point he made to Granger more than a year ago.

Case in point, why not throw in a couple dozen buses or additional funding for a high-speed, cross-border light rail transportation system and not ask any of those passengers for passports?

Mean Green Matt · May 19, 2010

Calderon is a moron. In his country if you get caught in the country without permission it is 2 years in prison. If you get caught a 2nd time it is 10 years in prison. Compared to that the Arizona Law mine as well be giving out free cupcakes to illegal immigrants.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Mean Green Matt

Rudy · May 20, 2010

Word for word from the AZ bill.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE

PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

Here is the bill available online.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

We all know that racial profiling is illegal, thus, you can not make lawful contact when racially profiling. This means that the contact must be made from consentual encounter (regular conversation) or when contacting for a crime (ie. traffic stop or other offense)

TheTastyGreek · May 20, 2010

Word for word from the AZ bill.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

Here is the bill available online.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

We all know that racial profiling is illegal, thus, you can not make lawful contact when racially profiling. This means that the contact must be made from consentual encounter (regular conversation) or when contacting for a crime (ie. traffic stop or other offense)

What does "lawful contact" mean in the state of Arizona?

Seriously, I'm not a lawyer. Anyone in Arizona that knows criminal law have an actual, court defined meaning for that phrase?

NT03 · May 20, 2010

What does "lawful contact" mean in the state of Arizona?

Seriously, I'm not a lawyer. Anyone in Arizona that knows criminal law have an actual, court defined meaning for that phrase?

Does this help ?

lawful_contact

TheTastyGreek · May 20, 2010

Does this help ?

lawful_contact

I’m not a lawyer, but it’s my understanding those words are in reference to...

Nope.

EDIT:

Another quote I didn't see right away:

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

So that bill isn't even the "word for word" Arizona bill anymore.

Edited May 20, 2010 by TheTastyGreek

UNT90 · May 20, 2010

What does "lawful contact" mean in the state of Arizona?

Seriously, I'm not a lawyer. Anyone in Arizona that knows criminal law have an actual, court defined meaning for that phrase?

Already answered here:

http://www.gomeangreen.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=52042&st=15&p=484674&hl=wardlow%20vs%20illinois%20&fromsearch=1&#entry484674

There is also a consensual contact, which is just a cop walking up and saying "hey can I talk to you for a second?" You can say F off, but if you say "sure", nothing illegal about it.

When it comes to forced police contact, you gotta at least have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed. See the cases listed in the above thread. Terry is very firm law. Wardlow, not so much. But it gives you an idea.

Rudy · May 20, 2010

The link I provided was taken from the AZ Legislature website this afternoon. So, yeah, its word for word, if they did change it to "lawful stop" it simply dumbs down the term lawful contact. So it's the same bill, just adjusted for "de de dee's" who just want to bitch. Wwithout knowing exact AZ law, I would believe lawful contact (stop) would be the same it is here in Texas, you have to have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain or arrest someone, unless it is a consentual encounter, which was accurately described by UNT90.

KRAM1 · May 20, 2010

In light of the fact that Mexico is upset with Arizona's new immigration law, and that the Mexican President blasted it during his state dinner last evening, it might be interesting to read about Mexico's immigration laws. A friend sent this to me yesterday. You might want to read the listed 10 items. If these are correct, sure smacks as a double-standard to me. But, also shows that Mexico has a bit "stricter" policy in force. The 10 items are, obviously paraphrased, so my "friend" might be a bit over-zealous in his interpretations, but one gets the drift.

1 There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

3. All government business will be conducted in our language.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

untbowler · May 20, 2010

In light of the fact that Mexico is upset with Arizona's new immigration law, and that the Mexican President blasted it during his state dinner last evening, it might be interesting to read about Mexico's immigration laws. A friend sent this to me yesterday. You might want to read the listed 10 items. If these are correct, sure smacks as a double-standard to me. But, also shows that Mexico has a bit "stricter" policy in force. The 10 items are, obviously paraphrased, so my "friend" might be a bit over-zealous in his interpretations, but one gets the drift.

to bad our president does not the huevos to ask tell Calderon that the US supports AZ Law and will not back down until Mexico changes there law to be on the same level or less strict, but nope he would rather buy Calderon a Coke and make sure his country gets to keep suckling at the US Teat for a bunch of freebies.

Also after reading about the Merida Dealings, Bush is a Socialist just as much as Obama.

Censored by Laurie · May 20, 2010

to bad our president does not the huevos to ask tell Calderon that the US supports AZ Law and will not back down until Mexico changes there law to be on the same level or less strict, but nope he would rather buy Calderon a Coke and make sure his country gets to keep suckling at the US Teat for a bunch of freebies.
Also after reading about the Merida Dealings, Bush is a Socialist just as much as Obama.

God, and if there gonna come hear, atleast learn the language.

hickoryhouse · May 20, 2010

God, and if there gonna come hear, atleast learn the language.

Sarcasm noted, however you do make a good point. The girlfriend is European and learning English, her 3rd or 4th language, was something that she decided to do so that she could function in American society as she immigrated here legally. I am not going to say that learning English should be a requirement to immigrate here legally, but I will say that it is a damn good idea.

Censored by Laurie · May 20, 2010

Sarcasm noted, however you do make a good point. The girlfriend is European and learning English, her 3rd or 4th language, was something that she decided to do so that she could function in American society as she immigrated here legally. I am not going to say that learning English should be a requirement to immigrate here legally, but I will say that it is a damn good idea.

Write.

Shuke-D · May 20, 2010

Sarcasm noted, however you do make a good point. The girlfriend is European and learning English, her 3rd or 4th language, was something that she decided to do so that she could function in American society as she immigrated here legally. I am not going to say that learning English should be a requirement to immigrate here legally, but I will say that it is a damn good idea.

I actually agree. But, how about learning it correctly as a condition of staying here for us 'natives'? Couldn't hurt some people.

TheTastyGreek · May 20, 2010

cwb · May 20, 2010

I actually agree. But, how about learning it correctly as a condition of staying here for us 'natives'? Couldn't hurt some people.

Man, these are the ones that kill me. It is like a truck or sign from a business that has a spelling error. At least two people worked together to get to this. I doubt that this guy inked his own back.

Don't know if any of you remember the skate park down at Bachman in the eighties. On the big ramp was a sign that read "helments required". Instead of starting over, the guy cut a peice of wood and nailed it over the n. Good stuph. We should start a thread with pics.

Shuke-D · May 20, 2010

Man, these are the ones that kill me. It is like a truck or sign from a business that has a spelling error. At least two people worked together to get to this. I doubt that this guy inked his own back.
Don't know if any of you remember the skate park down at Bachman in the eighties. On the big ramp was a sign that read "helments required". Instead of starting over, the guy cut a peice of wood and nailed it over the n. Good stuph. We should start a thread with pics.

I don't have a pic of it, but from 90-97, once you crossed the Oklahoma border on Highway 75, they had a state sign that read "Welcome to Oklahoma: Home of Friendy People." I hear it has finally been replaced.

KRAM1 · May 20, 2010

So, should we have a discussion on the requirement to learn English? If so, could we do it in a civil manner?

I am puzzled by the need some folks have to make certain that all official documents are in English and Spanish. Seems we are one of the very few nations that thinks that is a necessity. It also humors me that ballots are printed in both English and Spanish. Shouldn't one learn the language before qualifying to vote? Just asking the question. I know it is very expensive to have to print things in two languages. If it is private industry and they want to do that, OK, great. Such is the case in a few other countries with menus, instructions, etc. But with taxpayer dollars are we being fiscally responsible or not? I only ask the question as some on the board seem to have some pretty "hot opinions" on the whole subject one way of the other.

The whole issue pretty much "goes away" when/if the federal government actually takes responsibility for one of the areas actually given to it by the Constitution. Seems to me the federal government likes to abdicate responsibilities in areas it should actually be responsible for while poking its nose into plenty of areas where the 10th amendment says it should not be dealing.

So, anyone care to weigh in without having to use foul language or get personal...or to blame Bush somehow for this mess.

Mean Green 93-98 · May 20, 2010

cwb · May 20, 2010

I don't have a pic of it, but from 90-97, once you crossed the Oklahoma border on Highway 75, they had a state sign that read "Welcome to Oklahoma: Home of Friendy People." I hear it has finally been replaced.

See, that's what I'm talking about. You know that sign had to have been signed off by several people.

BTW, Friendy people are OK.

DeepGreen · May 20, 2010

So, should we have a discussion on the requirement to learn English? If so, could we do it in a civil manner?

I am puzzled by the need some folks have to make certain that all official documents are in English and Spanish. Seems we are one of the very few nations that thinks that is a necessity. It also humors me that ballots are printed in both English and Spanish. Shouldn't one learn the language before qualifying to vote? Just asking the question. I know it is very expensive to have to print things in two languages. If it is private industry and they want to do that, OK, great. Such is the case in a few other countries with menus, instructions, etc. But with taxpayer dollars are we being fiscally responsible or not? I only ask the question as some on the board seem to have some pretty "hot opinions" on the whole subject one way of the other.

The whole issue pretty much "goes away" when/if the federal government actually takes responsibility for one of the areas actually given to it by the Constitution. Seems to me the federal government likes to abdicate responsibilities in areas it should actually be responsible for while poking its nose into plenty of areas where the 10th amendment says it should not be dealing.

So, anyone care to weigh in without having to use foul language or get personal...or to blame Bush somehow for this mess.

Live anywhere near the coast and most documents are written in three languages: English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. That has to be cheap!

untbowler · May 20, 2010

Live anywhere near the coast and most documents are written in three languages: English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. That has to be cheap!

I know in Election Law, if there is a Ethnicity/Language that is spoken by 5% of the Population then Ballots must also contain that language, for instance I believe it is Maverick County, there is Kickapoo Population large enough to require the language to be present.

KRAM1 · May 20, 2010

Interesting. Again, however, is that law one that "should" be on the books? If one is a citizen of the US (presumably a requirement to be able to vote) wouldn't it be important to learn the language in order to actually be an "informed voter"?

In the case of the Kickapoo, well, maybe an exception for "Native American Languages". They were here first!

TheTastyGreek · May 21, 2010

Schindler es muy bueno, nueva ley es el diablo.

Censored by Laurie · May 21, 2010

I know in Election Law, if there is a Ethnicity/Language that is spoken by 5% of the Population then Ballots must also contain that language, for instance I believe it is Maverick County, there is Kickapoo Population large enough to require the language to be present.

Christ man, why can't these damned Indians learn the native tongue of this land?