Candidate for Arizona utility commission wants to cut off utilities of illegals

[QUOTE="MathMattS"]

Do that, too. Of course, in this day and age, the Arizona authorities are the only authorities that seem to want to do anything about illegal immigration...but hey, alert the authorities AND cut off utilities for good measure.

l4dak47

Cutting off their water seems like a rather extreme thing to do. The fact that someone has broken the law does not imply that they should be stripped of their basic human necessities.

Listen, they're NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE in the country. Every single little thing that happens to them is their own fault, they're there at their own and their childrens risks. It's incredible that they're even able to get the things this topic is about.Osaka-06

As above, the fact that someone has broken the law does not mean that all bets are off and that they no longer have basic human rights. The attitude I see of "they're here illegally so we can do anything and everything we want to them" strikes me as more than a little disturbing.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Then they are legally there if they have a child there.. :| Hence they shouldn't fit int hat catagory, hence they should not have power or water turned off if they are paying for it.

sSubZerOo

But the government allows them to be there due to their child being legally born.. Hence ANCHOR..

That's a little excessive...chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="MathMattS"] Yea, a double whammy guaranteed to get rid of the illegals. GabuEx

Cutting off their water seems like a rather extreme thing to do. The fact that someone has broken the law does not imply that they should be stripped of their basic human necessities.

Listen, they're NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE in the country. Every single little thing that happens to them is their own fault, they're there at their own and their childrens risks. It's incredible that they're even able to get the things this topic is about.Osaka-06

As above, the fact that someone has broken the law does not mean that all bets are off and that they no longer have basic human rights. The attitude I see of "they're here illegally so we can do anything and everything we want to them" strikes me as more than a little disturbing.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

I certainly could understand if Mexico was Somalia, but Mexico is not so far lost that its people can make a difference and turn things around. I can't imagine such a massive loss of its citizens fleeing is good for Mexico.

Have you seen the Population numbers for Mexico and how many have left and is projected to leave in the future? A country losing so many of its citizens.... :?

munu9

That's what happens when your police and politicians are corrupt, and you let drug cartels run rampant. I don't even know what the exact percentage is, but so many of the police in Mexico are on the take that you really can't trust anyone. They sell out American tourists to criminals all the time.

Well then why don't you just go down there and make the world a better place for them? We'll see how long you last.

You're not doing anything TO them just becuase you're not supplying them with those kind of resources. You're simply not allowing them to use the resources of the United States.Osaka-06

You can dress it up however you want, but you're still depriving them of water and air conditioning in Arizona. And for what? It's not as though they're stealing those resources. If they're illegal, deport them. That is the proper legal channel. Should we start depriving everyone charged with a crime in America from having access to water?

So is the plan now just to make life for illegal immigrants as miserable as possible? -Sun_Tzu-

Should we start depriving everyone charged with a crime in America from having access to water?

GabuEx

Lumping in criminals that are citizens with criminals that aren't?:P

Doesn't fly very well.:P

Should we start depriving everyone charged with a crime in America from having access to water?

GabuEx

Well then why don't you just go down there and make the world a better place for them? We'll see how long you last.hartsickdiscipl

...

GabuEx

:P

Lumping in criminals that are citizens with criminals that aren't?:P

Doesn't fly very well.:P

topsemag55

Why not? Tell me what the difference is, then.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Lumping in criminals that are citizens with criminals that aren't?:P

Doesn't fly very well.:P

GabuEx

Why not? Tell me what the difference is, then.

Citizens have basic Constitutional rights, even while incarcerated...illegals do not, they aren't citizens.

I'm not saying cut off their utilities, I'm just saying they aren't citizens - they are illegals.

Citizens have basic Constitutional rights, even while incarcerated...illegals do not, they aren't citizens.

I'm not saying cut off their utilities, I'm just saying they aren't citizens - they are illegals.

topsemag55

First, not all Constitutional rights are strictly for American citizens. In fact, most Constitutional rights are for everyone. You cannot pass a law, for example, that bans all speech that is not approved by the government for non-citizens, or which denies non-citizens charged with a crime the right to a speedy trial by jury in which they have access to an attorney. I don't know where people get the idea that the Constitution applies solely to American citizens and to no one else.

Second, this doesn't even have to be a Constitutional issue; it's a basic logical issue. Someone has broken the law, and the path to achieve justice is to follow the proper legal paths to punish that person for having broken the law. In no other situation is someone punished in such an unusual fashion as having their utilities cut off. Someone who is charged with theft, or vandalism, or whatever else does not have their utilities cut off.

That's idiotic. If they can check the status the logical thing to do would be to notify the authorities. markop2003

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Lumping in criminals that are citizens with criminals that aren't?:P

Doesn't fly very well.:P

topsemag55

Why not? Tell me what the difference is, then.

Citizens have basic Constitutional rights, even while incarcerated...illegals do not, they aren't citizens.

I'm not saying cut off their utilities, I'm just saying they aren't citizens - they are illegals.

I wish the Obama administration would do something more that way states would not have to resort to these measures.

I wish the Obama administration would do something more that way states would not have to resort to these measures.

fueled-system

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]

I wish the Obama administration would do something more that way states would not have to resort to these measures.

Chutebox

Can Arziona just pass a law that says they'll execute anyone suspected of being illegal on sight?

First, not all Constitutional rights are strictly for American citizens. In fact, most Constitutional rights are for everyone. You cannot pass a law, for example, that bans all speech that is not approved by the government for non-citizens, or which denies non-citizens charged with a crime the right to a speedy trial by jury in which they have access to an attorney. I don't know where people get the idea that the Constitution applies solely to American citizens and to no one else.

Second, this doesn't even have to be a Constitutional issue; it's a basic logical issue. Someone has broken the law, and the path to achieve justice is to follow the proper legal paths to punish that person for having broken the law. In no other situation is someone punished in such an unusual fashion as having their utilities cut off. Someone who is charged with theft, or vandalism, or whatever else does not have their utilities cut off.

GabuEx

Sure, this doesn't have to be a Constitutional issue; however, in the case of an American, it's automatically tied-in by default in the judicial system.

An illegal may obtain a speedy trial, but there's no Constitutional guarantee of it.

And I'm not for the utility cutoff.

By the way, are you enjoying your break? Must feel a little weird not having your moderator powers.:P

to hell with illegals. Ask any legal immigrant and more likely than not they will be POd at how easily illegals get in and how they live off the system. Id be for killing all the illegals! make their lives miserable!!AHAHAHAHAAAStanley09

to hell with illegals. Ask any legal immigrant and more likely than not they will be POd at how easily illegals get in and how they live off the system. Id be for killing all the illegals! make their lives miserable!!AHAHAHAHAAAStanley09

Sure, this doesn't have to be a Constitutional issue; however, in the case of an American, it's automatically tied-in by default in the judicial system.

An illegal may obtain a speedy trial, but there's no Constitutional guarantee of it.

topsemag55

No. False. I'm sorry, but this is completely false. The wording in the Constitution is very precise. When it is talking about citizens, it says either "citizens", such as the privileges and immunities clauses in Article IV, Section 2, or issues a qualified statement, such as the seventeenth amendment where it says that electors must share the same qualifications as those who may vote in the most numerous branch of the state legislatures. Any time it unqualifiedly says "persons" or the like, this is a very deliberate wording that broadens the scope to everyone, without exception.

A non-citizen cannot be Constitutionally denied a speedy trial by jury in criminal proceedings. There absolutely is a Constitutional guarantee of that.

By the way, are you enjoying your break? Must feel a little weird not having your moderator powers.:P

topsemag55

Not really; I just have to report things instead of doing it myself. :P

[QUOTE="Stanley09"]to hell with illegals. Ask any legal immigrant and more likely than not they will be POd at how easily illegals get in and how they live off the system. Id be for killing all the illegals! make their lives miserable!!AHAHAHAHAAAcyberdarkkid

My coworker actually proposed shooting them onsight to me. This is becoming the whole healthcare debate again - some people have completely lost their minds.mattbbpl

Maybe conservatives can bring back the "death panels", only now instead of deciding whether Granny dies, they decide whether Pedro dies. :P

to hell with illegals. Ask any legal immigrant and more likely than not they will be POd at how easily illegals get in and how they live off the system. Id be for killing all the illegals! make their lives miserable!!AHAHAHAHAAAStanley09

This is why we shouldn't allow some people to repopulate

Not really; I just have to report things instead of doing it myself. :P

GabuEx

Oh, it's just temporary. (I asked above why you quit.)

StopThePresses

See my sig.

Not really; I just have to report things instead of doing it myself. :P

GabuEx

I'm going to take a break for a bit, Gabu. Apologies, but I'm getting a little hungry. I'm going to run out and get some Mickey-D's.:P

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

Oh, it's just temporary. (I asked above why you quit.)

GabuEx

See my sig.

That's just wrong. How about instead we go after the businesses that hire the illegal immigrants.

That's just wrong. How about instead we go after the businesses that hire the illegal immigrants.

Ingenemployee

I understand the ethics involved in this situation, but I don't have a good grasp about the economics. He called the illegal immigrants customers is that right? That implies they pay. Then he goes on to say that "cutting electricity, water, natural gas, even telephone lines at the homes of illegal immigrants .. would lower costs for the rest of the state's customers. He believes the population spike caused by illegal immigrants forces the state to build new power plants and then raise rates for customers." By removing a significant chunk of your customers (by his own admission) those places would close down and people would lose their jobs. I am not even sure if the infrastructure is completely paid for either; wouldn't that translate to higher costs to legal customers? Let's say this plan goes through, and you have millions of people without power or water and they're still in AZ (there is no mention of notifying the authorities of the status of the customers) then aren't people going to get sick or heat exhaustion (for example) thus requiring the state to pay for the medical treatment of the individuals?

Even if they make the life hard for the illegal immigrants to the point that they move, they will still be in the U.S. It's not doing anything concerning the immigration problem.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]Well then why don't you just go down there and make the world a better place for them? We'll see how long you last.munu9

Put yourself in their shoes for a minute, and don't assume that it's not that bad where they come from. Our country is supposed to be a melting pot for anyone that wants to come here. Granted, they are supposed to come here legally.. but we're not letting people in legally like we used to. If we encouraged immigration a bit more, they wouldn't have to be illegal at all.

I DO however, have an issue with people who come here from other countries and make little to no effort to assimilate to this culture. People who are in the US for many years and barely speak any English, have made no effort to gain legal citizenship, etc.. That's just laziness.

By the way, on the question of the legality of this proposal, I did a little digging and have come to the conclusion that it would in all likelihood be found un-Constitutional even if it were enacted. The 1982 case Plyler v. Doe was actually very similar: a Texas law was enacted to bar children who were illegal immigrants from receiving public education. It was struck down on the basis that the law did not further any substantial state interest, that illegal immigrants were people as stated by the Fourteenth Amendment "in any ordinary sense of the term", and that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

As I can see no substantial state interest in denying illegal immigrants basic utilities that have been paid for, I would imagine that a law such as the one proposed here would meet a similar fate.

Makes sense to me. why would someone who isn't suppose to be here get those services? That's like me walking into someones house, using their water and TV without their permission. If i won't leave, then the logical thing to do is to just cut off my reasons for staying thereMario2007

On account of the fact that these utilities have all been paid for, I would say that it's more like you walking into a store and buying water and a TV, with the permission of the vendor.

Makes sense to me. why would someone who isn't suppose to be here get those services? That's like me walking into someones house, using their water and TV without their permission.Mario2007

By the way, on the question of the legality of this proposal, I did a little digging and have come to the conclusion that it would in all likelihood be found un-Constitutional even if it were enacted. The 1982 case Plyler v. Doe was actually very similar: a Texas law was enacted to bar children who were illegal immigrants from receiving public education. It was struck down on the basis that the law did not further any substantial state interest, that illegal immigrants were people as stated by the Fourteenth Amendment "in any ordinary sense of the term", and that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

As I can see no substantial state interest in denying illegal immigrants basic utilities that have been paid for, I would imagine that a law such as the one proposed here would meet a similar fate.

GabuEx

"Substantial state interest" is such a murky term though...

[QUOTE="munu9"]

Well then why don't you just go down there and make the world a better place for them? We'll see how long you last.hartsickdiscipl

Put yourself in their shoes for a minute, and don't assume that it's not that bad where they come from. Our country is supposed to be a melting pot for anyone that wants to come here. Granted, they are supposed to come here legally.. but we're not letting people in legally like we used to. If we encouraged immigration a bit more, they wouldn't have to be illegal at all.

I DO however, have an issue with people who come here from other countries and make little to no effort to assimilate to this culture. People who are in the US for many years and barely speak any English, have made no effort to gain legal citizenship, etc.. That's just laziness.

[QUOTE="Mario2007"]Makes sense to me. why would someone who isn't suppose to be here get those services? That's like me walking into someones house, using their water and TV without their permission.StopThePresses

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"][QUOTE="Mario2007"]Makes sense to me. why would someone who isn't suppose to be here get those services? That's like me walking into someones house, using their water and TV without their permission.Mario2007

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Lumping in criminals that are citizens with criminals that aren't?:P

Doesn't fly very well.:P

topsemag55

Why not? Tell me what the difference is, then.

Citizens have basic Constitutional rights, even while incarcerated...illegals do not, they aren't citizens.

I'm not saying cut off their utilities, I'm just saying they aren't citizens - they are illegals.

Unless otherwise noted (the right to vote, for example) Constitutional rights apply to all persons in the United States. Not to mention that there are international human rights treaties that the United States adhires to.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"][QUOTE="Mario2007"]Makes sense to me. why would someone who isn't suppose to be here get those services? That's like me walking into someones house, using their water and TV without their permission.Mario2007

So, wait, hold on a second, are you saying that the head of a country owns or should own the water and television services within that country?