If You Ain't White – get ready to carry papers in Arizona

It doesn't do anyone any good to complain about solving a problem without proposing solutions themselves. So??? What is your solution to getting the people that are here 'ILLEGALLY' out of our fine country?????

If You Ain't White – get ready to carry papers in Arizona

I carry my drivers license with me all the time. If someone ask I don't have a problem showing it to them. What's the problem? Racial profiling is just a left wing talking point.

DWF:

I carry my drivers license with me all the time. If someone ask I don't have a problem showing it to them. What's the problem?

Te problem is that you seem to believe that the police have the authority to ignore the Constitution of the United States.

"The problem is that you seem to believe that the police have the authority to ignore the Constitution of the United States." But it is ok for the illegals to do it?

America was built on the backs of whites, blacks, and native American Indians. As such America belongs to us first.

I am sick of our prisons being filled to capacity, because young men (especially Black), feel there is nothing here for them except crime.

1. Start a new program to get NON-violent American prisoners out of prison and into school, employment, or the military. (Jobs will be plentiful after you enforce # 2)

2. Close the borders, deport illegal’s of ALL races and ALL colors.

3. Decrease monies GIVEN to foreigners for school. Increase monies for Black Americans and Native American Indians to attend school. (Enforcing # 2 should make this easy as well.)

4. Decrease monies GIVEN to foreigners to start business’s. Increase monies GIVEN to Black Americans and Native American Indians to start business’s. (Again enforcing # 2 should make this easy.)

So, here is the scenario that was discussed last night on Hannity, a car is stopped for speeding and there are other Hispanic occupants in the car. If the other occupants look "suspicious" to the officer, does he have the right to detain the driver AND the occupants?

Both legal experts (left and right) agreed that the officer can only issue a speeding ticket to the driver and does not have the right to hold the occupants. If the officer was suspicious of the driver, then he could hold the driver if the driver could not provide ID. Otherwise, he is only allowed to give a ticket for the offence. Compound this with states that provide DL's to illegals, and it becomes extremely difficult to prove citizenship.

Now, what if the car was filled with white teens? Would he have the same suspicion? This is where race plays into the case.

Also, both sides are saying that this law will not deliver the "safe streets" as promised. There are bigger issues that are related to safe streets in AZ, drugs being #1.

At this point, I am sure you are following that this is being promoted as a bad law on both sides. If the GOP continues to support, then they run the risk of turning off the Latino base. This is a group that Bush fought hard to embrace, which is now in jeopardy.

So, let's talk a little politics since this is what this is all about anyway. The GOP is going to find themselves in trouble. The Tea Party movement is far right, now this law has the potential to damage the relationship with the Latino base. The GOP moderates (such as myself, fiscally conservative with moderate social beliefs) are being torn. If the GOP is not careful, come November, they will not have gained the ground that they have anticipated.

What I find funny in all this is I do not like this law because I do not want the police to have the power at street level to detain me or someone else due to suspicion. They have not defined what constitutes proof of citizenship since there are states that issue DL's to illegals and it is easy to falsify a SS card with a tax ID. I want less government intrusion in my life, not more. The efforts here are misguided. The issues are not the illegals, they are merely a symptom of the problem. The crime problem is drugs and the job issue is wages and employers who exploit. Clamp down on the borders, fight the drug issue with prevention and enforcement and enforce the laws that are already on the books for employers.

What's next? TSA type lines at all major intersections "just to be fair"? How about a National ID with a bio chip "just to be fair"? How about RFID implants for all legal citizens "come on, it's for your own good and just think, you will never have to carry a set of keys again, or an ID or a credit card, just wave your arm over this reader Mr. Jones!!" :-)

Under the 4th amendment you are exactly right but here is the problem...why do you think Arizona created and passed a bill to do what they can already do with the abuse protections of the 4th Amendment in place? And why do you think they avoided that little 4th clause of Probable Cause that you are actually talking about and why did they instead use "Suspicion".

Find the answer to that and have the answer.

Fascism will come at the hands of perfectly authentic Americans.
John T. Flynn

I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security. (border security)
Jim Garrison

Hey, AZ I bet you are proud of the neo nazi "citizen" who authored this fascist bill, huh?

Arizona the EUGENICS state!

70% approval for the bill in Az. About time someone said stop the BS. Way to go AZ. November's coming Libs and this is just the start of OUR Hope and Change.

11/02/2010 the end begins!

Coincidentally Fred the Americans who are forced to carry ID's under penalty of detainment are 15% of the population. I would say that the 70% who support this are probably not the Americans who are having their rights taken from them.

"The problem is that you seem to believe that the police have the authority to ignore the Constitution of the United States." But it is ok for the illegals to do it?

The probem here is that the police are sworn to uphold the law. They don't have a choice. Although most police ignore the laws because they belive they are exempt. But by definition 'illegals' are breaking laws. But if you can point out what part of the Constitution illegals are ignoring that would be good.

I just want to know. From where I've lived all my life, Police could pretty much do whatever the hell they wanted to. So, there are places in America where they've been ' handcuffed'?

Yes, the police are definitely handcuffed when it comes to illegal aliens. My good friend is a police officer in the city I commute to work in. He has told me stories on several occasions of about stopping van fulls of illegals. They are not even allowed to question them. All they can do is cite the driver if an infraction has occurred, but they cannot do anything even if they suspect that the rest of the occupants are undocumented. Apparently you don't live in the south. If you did you would see the enormous illgal population that is sucking our states resources dry like a hungry tick. This is not a "race" issue unless you need a talking point. It's an economic survival issue and it needs to be dealt with swiftly and severely!

I just want to know. From where I've lived all my life, Police could pretty much do whatever the hell they wanted to. So, there are places in America where they've been ' handcuffed'?

Yes, the police are definitely handcuffed when it comes to illegal aliens. My good friend is a police officer in the city I commute to work in. He has told me stories on several occasions of about stopping van fulls of illegals. They are not even allowed to question them. All they can do is cite the driver if an infraction has occurred, but they cannot do anything even if they suspect that the rest of the occupants are undocumented. Apparently you don't live in the south. If you did you would see the enormous illgal population that is sucking our states resources dry like a hungry tick. This is not a "race" issue unless you need a talking point. It's an economic survival issue and it needs to be dealt with swiftly and severely!

Norcal2 says>>>I would say that the 70% who support this are probably not the Americans who are having their rights taken from them.

You seem to forget, illegals are not Citizens, nor are they Americans. They do not have the rights we have in the first place. They need to legally obtain citizenship to get OUR rights.

Your comment is a MUTE point

They are not even allowed to question them. All they can do is cite the driver if an infraction has occurred, but they cannot do anything even if they suspect that the rest of the occupants are undocumented.

So what's next an anal inspection if they suspect you have drugs? Just why would you suspect someone and not another. You want to question someone because they are a passenger in a vehicle that was probaly stopped on some trumped up reason.

Little Sure Shot:

"The problem is that you seem to believe that the police have the authority to ignore the Constitution of the United States."

But it is ok for the illegals to do it?

That's an illogical question.

This isn't a choice regarding who should and shouldn't be allowed to violate the requirements of the Consitution of the United States.

Nobody should be allowed to violate the terms of the Constitution.

Period.

So, sorry, but I'm not sure what your point is...

RhondaC:

You seem to forget, illegals are not Citizens, nor are they Americans. They do not have the rights we have in the first place. They need to legally obtain citizenship to get OUR rights.

This is a factually inaccurate statement.

Everyone in the United States is under the protection of the Constitution of the United States, even illegal aliens.

Your comment is a MUTE point

"Moot."

Rhonda what do you think all the argument has been about. Most agree that we have an illegal problem and it must be fixed. The argument is not illegals it is our fellow AMERICANS who look like illegals being forced to carry ID's under penalty of detention while walking down Main Street USA.

Illegal is a whole different issue. Had Arizona written a law that made themselves border guards and limited it to the border then they and federal could have fought it out in court. This law is about some Americans who look like the illegals they are after walking down a US city street.

It is about Arizona already having the 4th right to stop them but opting to write a law that excludes the 4th language. It is about potential for abuse. They are going to have to fix all that. They can easily do it by not taking away a percentage of American rights to walk down a street with or without an ID. No city in America currently requires one group of Americans to carry ID under penalty of detention except Arizona thanks to their wording and omission.

My comment was not MUTE. lol

Power

If there are as many illegal Irish and Polish in your hometown as you claim why aren't you doing something about it?

upswing

DWF:

I carry my drivers license with me all the time. If someone ask I don't have a problem showing it to them. What's the problem?

Te problem is that you seem to believe that the police have the authority to ignore the Constitution of the United States.

I beg your pardon, I do not seem nor do I believe anyone including the police and POTUS have the authority to ignore the Constitution. However several states believe the health care bill violates the US Constitution.

Where is your talking point located in AZ's bill?

Read the text here.

America was built on the backs of whites, blacks, and native American Indians. As such America belongs to us first.

So all the Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans ( the largest legal minority group) here since the early days have done nothing in your view?

Are you ignorant of history or just prone to racist exclusions?

Decrease monies GIVEN to foreigners for school. Increase monies for Black Americans and Native American Indians to attend school. (Enforcing # 2 should make this easy as well.)

And so again you ignore all the other Americans of other colors that you apparently don't consider worthy.

Rhonda believes in a perfect world with perfect knowledge, where this law is only applied to those who are in this country illegally. Setting aside upswing's excellent and correct analysis of the applicability of the Constitution to illegal aliens (hint - if Rhonda's view were correct, we could not prosecute an illegal alien for murder. We can. She's wrong.), she is incorrect in her belief that the law only impacts illegal aliens.

Arizona has a large Hispanic community. And it is not that these people are in the country legally, they are citizens of the United States, many with families going back to the Gadsden Purchase, when this area became a part of the United States. Arizona also has a large Native American community. All of these people are very much US citizens, with family histories going waaaaay back.

And every one of them is presumed guilty until proven innocent under this law.

That is illegal. It is unconstitutional. It is creating the crime of walking around while being Hispanic. It is instituting the idea that a US citizen may be required to produce papers at any time. Rhonda desperately wants to believe that only illegal immigrants will be targeted, even though at the signing, when asked, Governor Jan Brewer had no idea under what criteria the law might be applied.

Let me say that again. The Governor, when asked, could offer no way that a police officer could look at a person and determine if this piece of turd law could be applied. We all know the answer she was dancing around: if they're not white, card'em. But she couldn't say that because it would be admitting this is a racist law designed not to stop illegal immigration, but to harass the fine, upstanding citizens of Arizona because of the color of their skin. Disgusting.

Is illegal immigration a problem? Yes. Is this the solution? H*ll no. And it is disingenuous to paint this as a binary extreme - either one supports this draconian and unconstitutional law or one supports unrestricted illegal immigration. That is not the case. The law is idiotic. Saying so does not aid or abet illegal immigration. Saying so merely indicates our brain damaged state senators are carrying on in the fine tradition of Ev Mecham and doing their usual determined best to make the state look as idiotic as possible.

From Tucson,

waffle

Power

If there are as many illegal Irish and Polish in your hometown as you claim why aren't you doing something about it?

DWF:

I beg your pardon, I do not seem nor do I believe anyone including the police and POTUS have the authority to ignore the Constitution. However several states believe the health care bill violates the US Constitution.

Sorry, but I don't have a clue what you're talking about here ... I'm not saying that anyone has the right to ignore the Constitution. In fact, I'm saying the opposite.

If you could clarify, I would be happy to respond.

Thanks.

It is about Arizona already having the 4th right to stop them but opting to write a law that excludes the 4th language. It is about potential for abuse. They are going to have to fix all that. They can easily do it by not taking away a percentage of American rights to walk down a street with or without an ID. No city in America currently requires one group of Americans to carry ID under penalty of detention except Arizona thanks to their wording and omission.

The United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself when lawfully detained for criminal activity. Note that the Supreme Court did NOT say that any kind of identification papers could be required, nor did they say that police officers could ordinarily arrest someone for refusing to identify himself absent a state law permitting that arrest. There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID, at least not yet.

Last time I checked crossing the US border without proper documents is an illegal activity.

However driving is a privilege and drivers must carry ID. Failure to do so is cause for arrest.

DWF go back and check. Any upholdings address giving your name, not producing an ID under penalty of detainment for an American. I might add you should look up what the courts say about suspicion. That one is interesting too. Nothing supercedes the 4th amendment probable cause so even the request must be for probable cause. Thus far probable cause has not been skin color of some select Americans.

The key is ID under penalty of detention.

Sorry, but I don't have a clue what you're talking about here ... I'm not saying that anyone has the right to ignore the Constitution. In fact, I'm saying the opposite.

You wrote,

Te problem is that you seem to believe that the police have the authority to ignore the Constitution of the United States.

How did you come to that conclusion from my comment of,

I carry my drivers license with me all the time. If someone ask I don't have a problem showing it to them. What's the problem?

Ahora comprende usted?

Typical left wing behavior, make up lies about what someone says to promote your talking points.

Arizona has a large Hispanic community.

Many of whose forebears lived in Arizona for at least a century before any Anglo made an appearance. There's a reason so many place names in the state are Spanish in origin, you know.

But that interferes with the entire "white people were here first, we're being invaded meme" that the frightened masses have embraced. There are plenty (most likely a majority) of Hispanics in the Southwest who are recent immigrants, both legal an illegal, but there are a significant number of citizens of Latino descent as well, most of whom welcomed these racists' forebears to the area a couple of centuries ago. These people are Americans and no American should be asked for their passport for internal matters. That smacks of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia: two countries I'd just as soon not emulate.

Now I'm going to ask the obvious here

You are driving down the street as a law enforcement officer and you get a call, white male, just assaulted some innocent Hispanic fellow on the street... suspect is wearing shorts and a black tee-shirt.

You turn the corner and you see a white male no shirt, shorts in the back pocket of those shorts there appears to be a black tee-shirt. As you get closer you notice a swastika on his right shoulder blade. Are you stopping this person on reasonable suspicion or letting them go? As an officer if they refuse to identify themselves and your state has a stop and identify law are you going to take him in or just let him go? If this person barely speaks english, and has a very thick accent will you verify he is here in this country legally, if your state law allows you to, or just ignore the possibility?

Now lets suppose this was a case of mistaken identity and the person was actually legally in the USA, did you as the police officer do anything wrong?

----

Now lets shift focus and make the person that was assaulted a member of your family, and their in intensive care and doctors don't know if they are going to make it...

Do you care about the ethnicity, gender, or whatever other demographic designator politics would assign this person who did this to your loved one?

Do you want police to do whateve they can within the law to catch the person who did this to your family member?

What if you found out, that a police officer saw this person walking down the street but let them go?

What if you found out the police, stopped this person, but because they refused to identify themselves, they took the lazy way out and let this person go?

What if they had the right person, in custody, and they were about to make bail, but because they did not want to risk it, they ignored the possibility our white male was illegal. Let him make bail and now our suspect can no longer be found? Later you discover this person was here illegally and there was nothing they could do... how upset would you be if they did not enforce a law on the books?

Remember this is your family member in a bed in the hospital, which may not make thru another night...

Go ahead... say it... in order to ensure no officer will racially profile any minority group, I would prefer that the person who attempted to murder or by morning has murder, my little brother, little sister, mother, father, or grandparent to be set free, or not questioned at all. Because they were just walking down the street and minding their own business, when the officer passed them by. I do not want the officer to attempt and identify this person because it may lead to a potential mistaken identity. I do not care wether this person is in this country legally or illegally, and I want them to be set free as soon as conveniently possible. If convicted and and sent to jail for 6 months on manslaughter charges, and it is known this person is in this country illegally, I want them released back to the general population and not deported to their country of origin...

DWF go back and check. Any upholdings address giving your name, not producing an ID under penalty of detainment for an American. I might add you should look up what the courts say about suspicion. That one is interesting too. Nothing supercedes the 4th amendment probable cause so even the request must be for probable cause. Thus far probable cause has not been skin color of some select Americans.

The key is ID under penalty of detention.

Go back and check for what? If you don't break the law you won't have a problem.

Where does it say the police can violate the US Constitution in the the AZ Immigration Bill?

If you don't break the law you won't have a problem.

"What have you got to fear if you've got nothing to hide"

Isn't that what people said about the patriot act?

Latins for Republicans - it's like roaches for Raid.
John Leguizamo

H.H. "What have you got to fear if you have nothing to hide" is a famous East German commie police state saying

you got to love the insane idiots that call for the deportation of 12 million people.. as if they have a @!$%#ing clue that is possible or cheap.

and hate to tell the bigots crying the fed hasnt done anything.. screaming we are all complaints and no solutions(damn funny coming from the gop)

WE had a law.. and it was working.. your state had the largest decline in illegal population in the US.. problem was the bigotry did not decline with it.

and despite every year yall have had less since janet napitano passed the law.. your right wing bigot southern strategy fascists have used your racial animocity to pass a law that is unconstitutional and unneeded.

And you want to know something.. a bunch of @!$%#ing germans where damn glad that the nazi were finally doing something about them non assimulating jewish immigrants.

Enjoy the hate GOP.. you are totally being played by it.

Unfortunately as part of this decline there was also a backlash effect of increased violence and new tools were needed to handle this escalation in violence...

Applied correctly this is what this law is about,

But I have not seen anyone counter my post above so I will take it the law should only be used if it affects a member of your family... however if it affects someone else then racial profiling should be screamed as clearly and as loudly as possible.

Answer me this. According to the new Health Care Law I must prove I have health insurance or be in violation of the law. Why do I, an American citizen, have to prove my insurance coverage to the federal government yet an an illegal alien, who is in violation of the law, need not have show that same government an ID to prove his citizenship . Show us your papers? Hell, Obama wants to see mine.

What the hell is wrong with this country?

Everybody is forgetting,it is already the law that if you are a legal immigrant you must carry your "green card" with you at all times,so what is the problem there.The law CLEARLY states that the officer MUST STOP YOU LEGALLY before he can even ask you for ID,that means he must have probable cause that some crime has been commited,not jut suspicion that you are an illegal.I don't hear those on the LEFT screaming about the mandate in Obama's insurance where they are going to check your"papers"any time they want to to VERIFY that you have insurance!!!What is the differance????PLEASE somebody tell me. Insurance ,,,Citizenship,the Government is saying it is perfectly fine for them to ask EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTRY if theyt have insurance,so why not your papers for CITIZENSHIP!!!!

Jon Chicago hit the nail on the head with this statement:

What's next? TSA type lines at all major intersections "just to be fair"? How about a National ID with a bio chip "just to be fair"? How about RFID implants for all legal citizens "come on, it's for your own good and just think, you will never have to carry a set of keys again, or an ID or a credit card, just wave your arm over this reader Mr. Jones!!" :-)

With all this ID theft going around and the illegal immigrant issue, we are going to be required to get RFID implants. I've been telling my wife for years about that. It was a crazy theory of mine at first, but now I'm beginning to wonder.

If you really want to mess with these reprobates two things that would be hilarious, One get a large group of trekkies to dress up in their regalia and invade Arizona! Two.have everyone dress in the same attire that some Repubs. use as an example of "how those people" dress! The mayhem would be wonderous.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/29/obama_admin_expands_law_enforcement_program

Obama Admin Expands Law Enforcement Program 287(g), Criticized for Targeting Immigrants and Increasing Racial Profiling

The Obama administration has expanded the controversial 287(g) program, which allows local law enforcement agencies to enter into agreements with Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, effectively giving local police the powers of federal immigration agents. The agreements have been widely criticized for increasing racial profiling and singling out immigrants for arrest without suspicion of crime. We speak to Aarti Shahani of Justice Strategies and Roberto Lovato of New America Media.

Joules

All I want to know is if I'm a cop and I stop a car full of illegals (truly illegal in this country) what ability do I currently have to do something about it seeing that it is ILLEGAL to be in this country if you don't take the proper procedures?

What can I do as a LAW enforcement officer trying to uphold the LAW? It's not a matter of being racist etc. I just simply want to uphold a law. What am I suppose to do?

I can't just walk into other countries, live there and expect them to be happy I'm there. They don't know who I am, they don't know what my agenda is there, they don't know if I have a criminal history and so on. If they find me they'll take care of me, kinda how it works, they don't throw me back out on the street.

I just want to know why the government feels completely cool with mandating me to purchase something which I don't feel they have the right to do BUT won't enforce our country's law against someone here illegally? We can completely offer all the freedoms this country has to offer but please just come here through the right channels. I don't think that's asking for too much from any citizen of any country.

Is that asking for too much?

If you get stopped by a cop you already get asked for your papers... errr ID.

AZ cops used to have to wait for ICE to show up to pick up a suspected illegal. Many times simply letting them go. Now they can make the arrest and legally transport them to ICE.

So by what you're saying it should be more efficient now?

AZ cops used to have to wait for ICE to show up to pick up a suspected illegal. Many times simply letting them go. Now they can make the arrest and legally transport them to ICE.

If you get stopped by a cop you already get asked for your papers... errr ID.

Except that for drivers without drivers license they would just get a "ticket" for it and be released on their marry way. Whats wrong with requiring you carry your proper legalization papers? Is that really a horrible request of our country if they've given you the opportunity to be here legally?

jkrystof: I agree. I'm tryhing to help make sense of the situation.

Is anyone here a legal Latino immigrant here? I want to know what THEY think.

I am white. When I go visit the grand canyon, I will bring my passport and would have no problem showing to any authority who asks.

However, SINCE I NEVER BREAK THE LAW, the police will ignore me.

AS THE POLICE WILL NOT PAY ATTENTION to law abiding citizens.

Cops need probable cause. You all are sooooooo hysterical, I just shake my head and wonder how anyone could be so hysterical OVER NOTHING.

Is anyone here a legal Latino immigrant here? I want to know what THEY think.

On another thread, a Latina in AZ said she did not care about the new law and thought it was necessary.

My Latina friend at the gym who CAME HERE LEGALLY wants all illegal aliens deported.

However, SINCE I NEVER BREAK THE LAW, the police will ignore me.

AS THE POLICE WILL NOT PAY ATTENTION to law abiding citizens.

Thats only when you're white

yeah sure only non white people are targeted in this country...get that stuff started.

Actually that was more of a joke, but since I din't put the sarcasm there I get that you thought I was serious. Apologies I don't mean to offend or "get that stuff started", of course white people are targeted. I've rarely heard of a white guy getting pulled over for being in a black neighborhood, though I'm sure it does happen.

AS THE POLICE WILL NOT PAY ATTENTION to law abiding citizens.

I just really have a problem with this statement because I think it's 100% BS.

Putting the "racial profiling" out for a second which some claim is now going to happen, is the actual concept of asking to see legalization documents from a person on a border state necessarily a bad concept? It's just giving some structure to back our country's law right? Mind you, doesnt not permit them to just walk up to you for no reason and ask for it.

Now seeing that Mexico is border of Arizona, how can we implement enforcing our country's law WITHOUT making it a race issue even though these are latinos coming over from Mexico illegally? I mean how can we be expected to enforce anything if we want to be politically correct first?

No matter what anyone would come up with it's going to end up being racial simply because of the fact these illegals are coming from Mexico. So we should do nothing?

Cops need probable cause.

And are experts at generating it when needed. Trust me, you can't drive 5 miles without violating some minor traffic ordinance in this country, particularly if a cruiser is right behind you, stalking the entire time. Even if you managed to drive perfectly, it doesn't matter. The cop can just claim he "saw you weaving from lane to lane" or that "your tire made contact with the curb." It's his word against yours, and since people like you pretend that cops are saints all of the time, who do you think the jury's going to believe.

I won't even go into the intentional planting of incriminating evidence, which has also been known to happen. After that stop, the cop drops a small baggie with white powder onto the floor of your car: suspected drug material in plain sight. I know someone that that little piece of police work actually happened to. Fortunately, the cop was just looking to harass him and picked the baggie up to use on the next "perp" he didn't like.

There are stinking bad cops out there, and their more moral brothers cover for them all of the time. Your trust is utterly misplaced.

Mexico placing a travel notice to all citizens possible heading towards Arizona. Too bad the Mexican government is not taking any steps to reduce the curb of illegal immigrants? Notice how this out-cry of this action is being used as a step-stone to say those time old phrases, "racism", "white only", and the must-have-required "racial profile"? I guess all of those US cities that are considered "safe havens" for illegal aliens will also be boycotting the state of AZ. The people who voice so much disapproval have yet to actually answer the question "okay how can we fix the problem of illegal immigration"? All you get is a bunch of people claiming that this is bad. So what is the other option? Allow 20 million illegals to become US citizens overnight? A large number of the "without inusrance" Americans are illegall aliens. Seems there is much more to this story then just a bunch of people ticked at this bill. You get pulled over they ask for ID, you seek a new job they ask for ID, need to buy cough medicine at the supermarket they ask for ID.... they even ask white people, go figure? Ever watch COPS on TV? I have seen a lot of white people getting taken to jail for all sorts of reasons.

Wingnuts, wingnuts, wingnuts

A lot of L I E S being spoken here

NO you do NOT have to be stopped for any crime - you could smiply be sitting on a park bench - with brown skin; driving and not commit any infraction, trying to get day labor. YES this is the definition of "racial profiling" and only a complete fool would deny that - this law only affects those who are brown (not even racially white mexican's here illegally look like "illegals")

NO a drivers license is not good enough (let alone an out-of-state license) - to prove citizenship you will need a birth certificate AND photo ID or a Passport (several states give drivers licenses without checking citizenship. In fact one if the media stories concerns a 100 year old woman - Arizona has only been a state for 98 years and she never needed an ID - is she to be deported (and to what?)

What law have they broken? Someone set up a quota that said only a certain number of immigrants a year (say 35,000) can be from Mexico so 35,007 is illegal (and how many illegal irish do we have? In fact a story I seeded was written by an illegal Canadian who easily went into and out of Sherriif Joe ("the Pig") Arpaio's tent city jail (and took pictures) armed with only a press pass

These wingnuts above are just regurgitating the same wingnut rants with NO facts to support them. CNN has been running fact checks all morning tearing apart all the claims of massive numbers of illegals committing crimes, this is the National Enquirer / Faux News mindset - take 5 crimes and act like they outweigh 5,000

The sense of the situation is this - There was no reson for this law. What they are tryting to do really can not be done - you can not secure the border. Build a fence people will tunnel under it; and so on

The only real way to stem the flow of illegals is to go back to why are they coming here - JOBS

A good friend of mine is a construction superintendent in Phoenix. Years ago the management company told them they only had a budget for "two white carpenters (at $15 / hour) and 10 mexican journeymen (at $7 an hour)" - yes he used the word "Mexican"

Quit with the racism, the fear, the hate; if your real intent is to stem the flow of immigrants go after the employers

Oh, and I forgot; Arizona did this under Napolitano and IT IS WORKING; from an estimated 560,000 illegals working in the state it dropped in one year of enforcement to 460,000 estimated

But Republicans do not want a law that works, they want wingnut rage / Fox spews L I E S; they want to protect Sherriff Arpaio (who is facing federal Indictment for constitutional violations

Wingnut rants are nothing but a waste of perfectly good electrons

Eriq:

Once again, you bash the general public but do not answer the actual problem? How would you fix the illegal immigration problem?

.....................

While you are thinking about that and writing a response, you might want to hold off your rants to those of us who support some kind of immigration reform.

AdipicAcid

As a lawmaker you can only do so much and put a law in place and hope it's served out responsibly. Are you suggesting lawmakers not go forward with laws simply because there are some bad cops out there? I agree it's unfortunate there are bad cops out there, there are bad people in general in any field however as a country and states we cannot forgo laws because of that. We have to do our best to get rid of those type of cops as well.

And lets just not make it out to be there are solely bad white cops out there, there are stories with African American cops doing the same to whites so keep that in mind. It's not acceptable in any shape or form.

eriq samson

NO you do NOT have to be stopped for any crime - you could smiply be sitting on a park bench - with brown skin; driving and not commit any infraction, trying to get day labor. YES this is the definition of "racial profiling" and only a complete fool would deny that - this law only affects those who are brown (not even racially white mexican's here illegally look like "illegals")

Think you're wrong. Racial profiling is not allowed and there needs to be just cause. This simple gives the officer the ability to do something about when an illegal is stopped rather than not having the ability to do so prior.

But pretty standard, I'm not surprised it's being misinterpreted.

Case Law

The issue of whether state and local law enforcement agencies are precluded from enforcing provisions of the INA was analyzed in the Ninth Circuit case of Gonzalez v. City of Peoria.33 In Gonzalez, the Ninth Circuit examined the City of Peoria’s policies that authorized local officers to arrest illegal immigrants for violating the criminal entry provision of the INA (8 U.S.C. §1324).34 The arrestees claimed that the INA represented a full federal occupation of the field, which would in turn preempt state action. The court turned to the legislative history of §132435 and determined that when Congress specifically removed language limiting the enforcement of §1324 to federal officers and inserted specific language authorizing local enforcement, that “it implicitly made the local enforcement authority as to all three criminal statutes (i.e., §§1324, 1325, 1326) identical.”36 Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit declared that local police officers may, subject to state law, constitutionally stop or detain individuals when there is reasonable suspicion or, in the case of arrests, probable cause that such persons have violated, or are violating, the criminal provisions of the INA.37

With regards to preemption, the Gonzalez court determined that the criminal immigration provisions were “few in number,” “relatively simple in their terms,” constituted a “narrow and distinct element” of the INA, and did not require a “complex administrative structure” consistent with exclusive federal control.38 The court, therefore, concluded that the criminal provisions did not support the inference that the federal government occupied the field of criminal immigration enforcement. With respect to civil immigration enforcement, Gonzalez has been construed to support the argument that states do not possess the authority, “inherent” or otherwise, (unless specifically granted by Congress) to enforce the civil enforcement measures of the INA.39 In conducting a preemption analysis for certain criminal provisions of the INA, the Ninth Circuit in Gonzalez made a distinction between the civil and criminal provisions of the INA, and assumed that the former constituted a pervasive and preemptive regulatory scheme, whereas the latter did not. The court stated: We assume that the civil provisions of the Act regulating authorized entry, length of stay, residence status, and deportation, constitute such a pervasive regulatory scheme, as would be consistent with the exclusive federal power over immigration. However, this case [Gonzalez] does not concern that broad scheme, but only a narrow and distinct element of it — the regulation of criminal immigration activity by aliens.40

Accordingly, the court concluded that the authority of state officials to enforce the provisions of the INA “is limited to criminal provisions.”41 The preemption analysis in Gonzalez has been criticized by some for parsing the INA when statutory construction and preemption principles generally require consideration of the whole

CRS-10

33 Gonzalez v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983).

34 The plaintiffs alleged that the city police engaged in the practice of stopping and arresting persons of Mexican descent without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and based only on their race. Furthermore, they alleged that those persons stopped under this policy were required to provide identification of legal presence in the U.S. and that anyone without acceptable identification was detained at the jail for release to immigration authorities.

35 8 U.S.C. §1324 states:
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrest for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws. (italics added)

36 See Gonzalez, 722 F.2d at 475 (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1505, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess, reprinted in 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1358, 1360-61).
37 Gonzalez, 722 F.2d at 475.
38 Id. at 474-75.
39 See e.g., 1996 OLC Opinion; 84 Op. Atty. Gen. Cal. 189 (Nov. 16, 2001) 2001 Cal. AG
Lexis 46; 2000 Op. Atty Gen. N.Y. 1001 (Mar. 21, 2000) 2000 N.Y. AG Lexis 2.
40 Gonzalez, 722 F.2d at 474-75.
41 Id. at 476.

statutory scheme in evaluating a specific provision.42 While Gonzalez appears to stand for the proposition that states do not possess the authority to enforce civil immigration laws, it has been argued that the preemption analysis in Gonzalez was based merely on an assumption and was outside the holding of the case, and thus does not constitute binding precedent.43 Whether this conclusion is completely accurate has yet to be tested in the courts in a definitive manner, although some decisions from the Tenth Circuit regarding criminal investigations may be seen by some as strengthening the role of state and local law enforcement agencies in immigration enforcement.

In the Tenth Circuit case of United States v. Salinas-Calderon,44 a state trooper pulled over the defendant for driving erratically but soon found six individuals in the back of the defendant’s truck. Because the defendant, who was eventually charged with the crime of illegally transporting aliens did not speak English, the state trooper questioned the passenger (the defendant’s wife) and learned that the driver and the other six individuals were in the country illegally. From this line of questioning, the court determined that the trooper had probable cause to detain and arrest all the individuals.

In addition to the probable cause conclusion, the Tenth Circuit determined that a “state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”45 It has been argued that since there was no reason to believe that the alien passengers had committed any criminal violations (i.e, they were only in the country illegally — a civil violation), the court’s statement appears to apply fully to civil as well as criminal violations.46 The Salinas-Calderon court, however, did not differentiate between civil and criminal INA violations nor did it address the charges or judicial proceedings for the six alien individuals found in the back of the truck. Instead, the focus of the Salinas-Calderon decision was on the probable cause and potential suppression of the statements made by the six alien passengers.

In United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, an Oklahoma police officer arrested a Hispanic male suspected of drug dealing because he was an “illegal alien.”47 A specific provision in the INA (8 U.S.C. §1252c) authorizes state officers to pick up and hold for deportation a previously deported alien who had been convicted of a crime in the U.S. and reentered illegally. Section 1225c requires state officers to obtain confirmation from the INS before making such an arrest. At the time of the arrest in Vasquez-Alvarez, however, the state officer did not have actual knowledge

CRS-11

42 Yanez, supra note 14, at 28-29.
43 CLEAR Act Hearing, H.R. 2671 (Oct. 1, 2003) (testimony of Kris W. Kobach, Professor
of Law, Univ. of Missouri-Kansas City).
44 United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d. 1298 (10th Cir. 1984).
45 Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d. at 1302 n.3.
46 See CLEAR Act Hearing, H.R. 2671 (Oct. 1, 2003) (testimony of Kris W. Kobach,
Professor of Law, Univ. of Missouri-Kansas City).
47 United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999).

of the defendant’s immigration status or past criminal behavior; it was only later discovered that the alien had a history of prior criminal convictions and deportations. The defendant argued that the state police could only arrest him in accordance with the restrictions detailed in 8 U.S.C. §1252c and since his arrest did not meet the requirements of that provision, it was unauthorized. The Tenth Circuit, however, ultimately concluded that §1252c “does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration law. Instead, §1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law.”48 The court also recognized that it had previously determined in Salinas-Calderon that state law enforcement officers have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws.49 The court concluded that the “legislative history (of §1252c) does not contain the slightest indication that Congress intended to displace any preexisting enforcement power already in the hands of state and local officers.”50 While Vasquez-Alvarez may be interpreted to suggest that state and local police officers do in fact possess the “inherent authority” to enforce all aspects of immigration law, it should be noted that the case arose in the context of a criminal investigation and was premised on Oklahoma law, which allows local law enforcement officials to make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.51

Expanding on Vasquez-Alvarez, the Tenth Circuit, in United States v. Santana- Garcia,52 again addressed the role of local law enforcement in immigration. In Santana-Garcia, a Utah police officer stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation. The driver of the car did not speak English and did not possess a driver’s license. The passenger of the car spoke limited English and explained that they were traveling from Mexico to Colorado, which prompted the officer to ask if they were “legal.” The passenger and the driver appeared to understand the question and answered “no.” From these facts, the court held that the officer had probable cause to arrest both defendants for suspected violation of federal immigration law.

In recognizing that state and local police officers had “implicit authority” within their respective jurisdictions to investigate and make arrests for violations of immigration law, the court seemingly dismissed the suggestion that state law must explicitly grant local authorities the power to arrest for a federal immigration law violation.53 To come to this conclusion, the court relied upon a number of inferences CRS-13

from earlier decisions that recognized the “implicit authority” or “general investigatory authority” of state officers to inquire into possible immigration violations.54 The court also seemed to rely upon a broad understanding of a Utah state law that empowers officers to make warrantless arrests for any public offense committed in the officers presence to include violations of federal law. 55 While the defendants in Santana-Garcia were apparently in violation of a civil provision of the INA (i.e., illegal presence), the Santana-Garcia court made no distinction between the civil and criminal violations of the INA, and the authorities the court cited generally involved arrests for criminal matters. Moreover, it remains unclear how the court, pursuant to its broad understanding of the Utah state law it relied upon, would have ruled absent the initial reason for the stop — the traffic violation. Accordingly, it can be argued that this case still seems to leave unresolved the extent to which state and local police officers may enforce the civil provisions of the INA as such.

The aforementioned cases ultimately arose in the context of enforcing criminal matters or violations of state law. This would seem to weaken the argument for an independent role in enforcing civil immigration matters. Nonetheless, as the cases from the Tenth Circuit illustrate, there appears to be a general movement towards expanding the role of state and local law enforcement officers in the field of immigration law, including some aspects of civil immigration enforcement.

CRS-12

48 Id. at 1295.
49 Id. at 1296 (citing Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d at 1301-02 & n.3 (10th Cir. 1984)).
50 Id. at 1299.
51 Id. at 1297 (citing 11 Okla. Op. Att’y Gen. 345 (1979), 1979 WL 37653).
52 United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2001).

53 Id. at 1194. The court, nonetheless, cited Utah’s peace officer statute (Utah Code Ann. §77-7-2) which empowers Utah state troopers to make warrantless arrests for “any public offense.” The court also found Defendant’s acknowledgment in Vasquez-Alvarez that Oklahoma law specifically authorized local law enforcement officials to make arrests for violations of federal law unnecessary to that decision. Id. at 1194 n.7.

54 Citing Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298 (10th Cir. 1984); United States v. Janik, 723 F.2d
537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983); United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1167 (5th Cir. 1977).
55 Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d at 1194 n.8 (citing UTAH CODE ANN. §77-7-2).

http://www.mnllp.com/CRSenforce11mar04.pdf

Mexico placing a travel notice to all citizens possible heading towards Arizona. Too bad the Mexican government is not taking any steps to reduce the curb of illegal immigrants?

Yes and we do So much to prevent people in the northern states in the US from crossing the border into Canada for medicine.

Notice how this out-cry of this action is being used as a step-stone to say those time old phrases, "racism", "white only", and the must-have-required "racial profile"? I guess all of those US cities that are considered "safe havens" for illegal aliens will also be boycotting the state of AZ.

OK, this maybe because i'm a minority myself, but I really don't see how you can look at this bill and say that racism is not going to come of this.

The people who voice so much disapproval have yet to actually answer the question "okay how can we fix the problem of illegal immigration"? All you get is a bunch of people claiming that this is bad.

FINE THE EMPLOYERS!!!!!

You get pulled over they ask for ID, you seek a new job they ask for ID, need to buy cough medicine at the supermarket they ask for ID.... they even ask white people, go figure?

Its not so much the ask for ID thing thats the problem, its the "cause to suspect they are illegal immigrants" clause most are worried about.

Ever watch COPS on TV? I have seen a lot of white people getting taken to jail for all sorts of reasons.

White people being arrested on cops is not an argument for racial profiling.

Racial profiling is not allowed and there needs to be just cause

And "the cop doesn't like the color of your skin" is "just cause" in the minds of some. You want to give officers more discretion: I think they need far less. They are proven untrustworthy with the discretion they are already given.

You know i have no problem with anyone becoming a US citizen, but "IF" you are willing to take the proper steps and become a citizen, alot of Americans will back you up. On the other hand if you want to be here as an illegal, pay the piper and suffer the tune.

For over a decade the American people have had a so called law which gives special rights to the South of the border counties. This is called either an "H2A" or "H2B" visa, what this gives these imagrants is a work visa for jobs in the USA. Ok, again if you want to come here that is ok, but do IT RIGHT.

With all the legal men and women in the USA looking for work and not being able to support their families, why are we letting any race into this country and to take away the jobs. You can go to Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming, Arizona,etc....and look for a job in any agricultural market and find that you are looked over because employeers will higher those with a visa. Where is the American Heart and Spirit. Are we ones that will stay by the way side and be stepped over or what.

Why is it thnat in these same states and others, that on a job app. You are asked if you speak spanish? Is this America or some other country? If you are going to be in this country, learn to speak english, learn to live with and obey the laws of the land, you came to this country to better yourself, don't change this country into what you left behind. For if you change the country any more, where will you go and what will you do when people flat make you leave.

Thank you for your time....

And "the cop doesn't like the color of your skin" is "just cause" in the minds of some. You want to give officers more discretion: I think they need far less. They are proven untrustworthy with the discretion they are already given.

AdipicAcid

you didn't understand the rest of my comment. I don't approve of cops like that either. And I'll tell you right now there are PLENTY of good responsible cops out there. You are calling out the bad ones.

Can you address my question if you feel the way you do:

Should we not go forward with laws as a country because there are bad cops?

We have to put laws out there with the belief good people will be enforcing them.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to enforce our laws as a country.

Yet another example of the Republicons failing to realize that gaining some short-term votes from their ignorant base will lead to catastrophic blowback in the relatively near future.

Democrats needs to take advantage of the "rope-a-dope" method and continue to give the GOP enough rope to further hang themselves.

Boy Howdy what I could make out of the three letters DWF!...even though it would be accurate beyond compare I will not. Sorry but your postings just beg for it!

You are calling out the bad ones.

Which is far more than the supposed majority of "good" ones ever do. Thus my skepticism that the "good" ones are really all that "good." The Code of Silence destroys their credibility.

And no, we do not have to put laws out there believing that good people will enforce them: we can recognize when power may be abused and put limits on the ability of the abuser to do so. Thus the Miranda warnings and other limitations on the police. This law on the other hand, encourages abuse by expanding the discretionary powers of the arresting officer. He no longer needs probable cause, only a reasonable suspicion. The latter criteria is appropriate for clear and present dangers like concealed weapons checks and pat downs during arrests, but the immigration status of someone who has not even been detained? I don't think so.

"The problem is that you seem to believe that the police have the authority to ignore the Constitution of the United States." But it is ok for the illegals to do it?

You and the 23 people that voted for your comment might be interrested in actually READING the constitution sometime... if you do, you will find that no part of the Constitution of the United States prohibits people from crossing into this country illegally... in fact, during the time in which the constitution was drafted, our forefathers considered those living within this country to be citizens of this country regardless of how they got here. So the only people violating the constitution here, are the nazi a-holes that are running Arizona's government.

I give up ...I hope the ACLU, LA Raza and whatever other civil rights organization you want to throw into the mix wins this one... because I definitely look Hispanic... and I will change my occupation to robbing banks for a living ...it will make it all more fun

There won't be a damn thing a law enforcement officer can do about it either...

I'll stand their with a duffel bag full of cash, fanning myself with hundred dollar bills, side arm properly holstered on my side and laugh at the officer. I am also going to hope he does not speak the words "you are free to go" and holds me there for more then 20 minutes. Just so I can sue him or her blind, for harassment and violating of my civil rights, and not allowing me to enjoy my casual walk down the street. I have victims to create and enjoy myself with.

I will get to assault anyone I want, just because I don't like what they look like, shoot anyone I want because maybe I didn't like their tone of voice. Home invasion robberies sound like fun... and I might even try my hand at drug dealing on school playgrounds, I hear this can be profitable.

Go ahead try and stop me because if they violate any my civil rights, I'll sue them and then have them thrown in jail... I really hope they win this civil rights battle, it will be the most free country on earth we get to to do whatever the hell we want...

Police officers?? they will make good observers and report writers, it will be nice for historians later on down the road.

However, SINCE I NEVER BREAK THE LAW, the police will ignore me.

AS THE POLICE WILL NOT PAY ATTENTION to law abiding citizens.

Thats only when you're white

H.H. You and the rest of you who think that police have time to make up crimes and falsely arrest people need to realize that you just have an inferiority complex.

My friend Joe -

I would like to work for you. You know your stuff.

Joe is explaining the fine distinctions in the law and how AZ's law is perfectly constitutional.

Joe is very precise with his language and if you actually read the posts instead of jumping to conclusions based on one sentence (ADD anyone?), then you would understand how WRONG YOU ARE TO DISAGREE WITH JOE.

DWF:

I carry my drivers license with me all the time. If someone ask I don't have a problem showing it to them. What's the problem?

Te problem is that you seem to believe that the police have the authority to ignore the Constitution of the United States.

By saying that you don't have a problem showing your license upon request, I took that to mean that you did not mind the police stopping you at any time and for any reason to see your license.

If that is not what you meant, then I misunderstood, and I apologize for that.

If it is what you meant, then I would repeat that it is a violation of the 4th Amendment for police officers to do that without just cause.

Therefore, by endorsing the police practice of random stops and demands for ID you would be endorsing the police's violation of the 4th Amendment.

Does that clear things up?

DWF -

I carry my drivers license with me all the time. If someone ask I don't have a problem showing it to them. What's the problem? Racial profiling is just a left wing talking point.

so let's see it then..........................................................yeah, thats what I thought.

It figures that the teabagger state would be the first to abridge the 4th Amendment rights of all Americans with this law. What's next? Tattooing the social security numbers on the forearms of Hispanic Americans? Little yellow cloth burro's or sombrero's they have to wear in plain sight on their clothing? The law opens the door for the systematic abuse by law enforcement agents and local officials in that state. After they're done with the illegals, that law won't go away, and it will be used to curtail the rights of the next unpopular group of individuals. History has plenty of examples.

Funny how the rightwing is so interested in securing our borders now. Where were they when we were "under attack by terrorists" 2001-2009? The current president has done more to secure our borders his first 15 months in office than the previous talking Texas chimpanzee did in his entire term in office.

Oh, that's right, cheap labor for his pals was more important than domestic security. After he ran our economy off the cliff and jobs became more scarce, it's time for the cheap labor to leave because of the financial drain on the local economies due to social programs for the working poor such as schools, hospitals, etc. The same social programs that received no tax money from the employers that scammed the system to enrich themselves at the expense of the local taxpayers.

Please excuse the metaphor, but our friends on the right are more interested in chasing the water that went through the hole in the dam and down the river, as opposed to fixing the dam.

The simple solution is to substantially fine the people that hire illegal immigrants. Those employers are just as guilty as the illegals by facilitating their employment. Create a whistle-blower program that pays a 50% bounty and protects the whistle-blower from the criminal offenders. Make the fines large, like $50K to $100K per violation. Double it for anyone holding a government contract and using illegals. Shut their businesses down until they pay the fines or make them post a bond equal to the fines if they want to fight it in court. It doesn't take much of a mathematician to calculate the financial incentive to the US budget for doing this, or a psychic to figure out who would be protesting the loudest.

William Randolph Hearst and his "influential friends" did the same thing to illegals in the last depression. The straw-men they used to run off the illegals at that time were lack of jobs for Americans and marijuana use by the illegals. It's a shame that so many innocent Americans will be victimized by the latest rightwing political theater. Just to impress a bunch of old teabaggers with a demonstration of which wingnut is wrapped tightest in the flag and carrying the biggest cross.

In the end, it won't matter what congress does to address this dated national problem, the rightwing will obstruct any solution that doesn't benefit the wealthy.

D. Craig C

They tried it in Nevada and were told they could not impose penalties and they would not be able to uphold it because it pre-empts federal law... go figure

So its purely up to the Fed to enforce that portion of the Law. Can we ask Obama to please enforce it? Meanwhile states need to come up with attrition programs to try and mitigate the problem...

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080324-1407-nv-illegalimmigrants.html

In response to the Taxation Department's query in September, Dickerson said earlier this month that federal immigration law "expressly pre-empts state and local laws which impose criminal or civil sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants, except through licensing and similar laws."

State Taxation Director Dino DiCianno said that means the section on fines in AB383 can't be carried out, although he will continue to forward complaints about hiring of undocumented workers to the attorney general's office.

The state Tax Commission "doesn't have the authority to establish a fine because that pre-empts federal law," DiCianno said Monday. "It doesn't mean that they can't pull a business license. It's just that they can't issue a fine."

Karen ... this one is really frustrating because of the prejudice on both sides of this issue, so it makes it extremely hard to get a rational point of view out there.

Something as simple as know your rights and how to use them correctly, empowers people and keeps them from making critical mistakes during a police encounter. Showing that there are already many laws on the books in many states doing the exact same thing the Arizona law is currently going to be doing.

It must be an election year and everyone need to make it as political and as polarized as possible I guess...

here let me help the fire a little ;)

Joe Arpiao and His Deputies Raid A Paper Mill That Hires Illegal Aliens Arizona
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnUOokUdwD0&feature=related

Arizona Immigration Agents Raid Shuttle Businesses! About freaking time!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woQ-96mUR9E&feature=fvw

Mexican Gangs Taking Over America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJHuIQ11j4s&feature=related

La Raza Mexicans Invade Texas Townhall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Equ42IOqExQ&feature=related

Lou Dobbs - Mexican flag raised in Maywood, California
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIB_XGRm6UQ&feature=related

American Veteran Removes US Flag from beneath Mexican Flag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ6cCPbA8jo&feature=related

Wal-Mart flies the Mexican flag in Memphis, TN!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2pZzW-Hn-E&feature=related

American Students Forced to Say Pledge to Mexican Flag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYKXquc2Q7w&feature=related

ILLEGAL ALIENS STEPPING ON AMERICAN FLAG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mitptd2-tV4&feature=related

American Veteran Removes US Flag from beneath Mexican Flag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ6cCPbA8jo&feature=related

Barack Hussein Obama refuses to salute US flag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCANi02o&feature=related

Illegals(?) Attack Senior Citizens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daxOhUTgL54&feature=related

Illegal Kills American Toddler 2.28.08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klQBW5DPzy0&feature=related

More Americans Killed By Illegal Aliens Than In Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lb3oFzCj_0&feature=related

Illegal Alien Kills Little Frankie Blue Eyes Brooks In Front Of His Family
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhovjSi0NLk&feature=related

An Illegal Alien Killed Danielle Bologna's Family
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pbh_iiv7cE&feature=related

Mexicans Tell Black Minutemen To Leave Their Continent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdlMWj0Lh9o&feature=related

ILLEGAL ALIEN SUES COP FOR REPORTING HIM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hmP8wyEYwg&feature=related

Cop Killed By Illegal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc35pH1FNXo&feature=related

ILLEGAL ALIENS MURDERING BLACK AMERICANS !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p5UZMH6jP4&feature=related

Invader allegedly impregnates 10-year-old
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3OsyVA5NzQ&feature=related

Hundreds of Racist Mexicans Rally in Detroit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au_icF5p_V0&feature=related

Mexican Consul "Southwest Will Be Mexican Again"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKW0dAEoUOg&feature=related

Aztlan Reconquista
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuNNXcnnD70&feature=related

Radical Aztlanists Exposed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_66wkQxJzg&feature=related

Mexica Movement: Indigenous Liberation for Anahuac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0qsmUDp5NQ&feature=related

Over the 88 years since 1917, however, no White House and no party in control of the Senate has ever resorted to the use of this draconian weapon in order to achieve its goal. Until now. Why now? It is because a determined minority in the Senate has refused to confirm 10 of 215 nominees to federal judgeships submitted by President George Bush during this first term as President. Since his reelection, President Bush has resubmitted 7 of the 10 nominees who failed of confirmation in his first term. Hence, a heavy-handed move is about to be made to change the rules by disregarding the standing rules of the Senate that have governed freedom of speech and debate in the Senate for over 200 years. The filibuster must go, they say.

Obstructive tactics in a legislative forum, although not always known as filibusters, are of ancient origin. Plutarch reported that, while Caesar was on sojourn in Spain, the election of Consuls was approaching. "He applied to the Senate for permission to stand candidate," but Cato strongly opposed his request and "attempted to prevent his success by gaining time; with which view he spun at the debate till it was too late to conclude upon anything that day." Hey, the filibuster has only been around 2,064 years, since circa 59 B.C.!

http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/2005_april/04_25_2005.html

H.H. You and the rest of you who think that police have time to make up crimes and falsely arrest people need to realize that you just have an inferiority complex.

I just simply have to respond to this. I don't think that police have the time to "make up crimes and falsely arrest people". I do believe that police sometimes don't look as throughly at a crime as possible, and I believe that false accusation against minorities, and "reasonable doubt" when it comes to minorities are used far more.

that you just have an inferiority complex.

I have an inferiority complex, Why? Because I've been pulled over in a rich neighborhood and been asked by a cop "whatcha doing here boy?". Because I've been handcuffed on the side of a street because my car and my skin color classify me as a street racer?

I don't think all cops are racist, nor do I believe the majority of the US is racist(if I did then I wouldn't be here). My problem is that you seem to think that racism id dead and that all people in positions of authority treat minorities exactly like whites. That is simply not true.

This has nothing to do with race-but everything to do with the federal govenment not enforcing federal law.The actual Arizona law states how and when people can be approached-read the bill and get the facts before you spew anymore outdated,overplayed racial crap -LAW is LAW

1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

you tell me thats not vague

Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.

I have a problem with the word "believe" in that sentence.

Te problem is that you seem to believe that the police have the authority to ignore the Constitution of the United States.

A very absurd statement; and quite an insult to the police officers who serve to protect and defend us daily. If the Constitution is being ignored it is by the present Obama Administration as well as the progressives who support his "vision" of what and who we may be; these are the folks stomping of the Constitution.

The people and the government of the State of Arizona have every right to deal with local problems locally that impact them, particularly when the federal government has failed and demonstrated that they are incapable of enforcing appropriate immigration laws.

Andromeda:

A very absurd statement; and quite an insult to the police officers who serve to protect and defend us daily.

Say what!

LOL!

If the Constitution is being ignored it is by the present Obama Administration

You mean the same guy who has told his Attorney General to investigate the AZ law to see if it should be challanged as being ... ta da! ... unconsitutional.

Oh, and the same Obama (who I don't much like, BTW. I think he's a liar and a hypocrite) who has organized a panel to look into the SCOTUS ruling allowing corporations to donate as much money as they want to campaigns to see if the law can be changed, so that it is sufficiently... ta da! ... cionstitutionally sound that SCOTUS can't nobble it again.

The people and the government of the State of Arizona have every right to deal with local problems locally that impact them, particularly when the federal government has failed and demonstrated that they are incapable of enforcing appropriate immigration laws.

Agreed.

And they have all of the tools they need to deal with their immigration problems without their new, unconstitutional and racist law.

You know, it's not what you have written that strikes me as being so funny .. It is the absolutely sincere way with which you have written it... As though what you are saying

a. is relevant

b. makes sense.

Hilarious! :-)

Good conversation...But Andromeda, I don't agree that you can vindicate all police...there's been far too many incidences of police corruption to support that thought! While you don't have any evidence to convict Obama or his administration of "ignoring" the Constitution. You've got to remember that Obama is well versed in Constitution Law! If he were to violate the very thing he studied and majored in at college would be the height of hypocrisy! I hardly think Obama is stupid enough to do that...no matter what his peers/colleagues want.

If anything, Obama WILL stand for Constitutional adherence.

HH 1105932...this is interesting! Thanks.

1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

I think this supports my thinking on how we can/should deal with the matter. The key word being "reasonable" for me...and also, "during any legitimate contact made by an offical or agency of the state or a county". To me that means if illegals seek education, medical services (paid by tax dollars), DL's, jobs (ie..because they must pay income taxes), they should be identified and flagged via that route.

It is NOT good to put this burden solely on the police...they've got a whole lot of other real crime to deal with.

I know this is quite radical to think about, but I think it's probably the easiest and most effective way to deal illegal immigration...I don't believe illegal immigrants are all "real" criminals. Seeking a better life, in and of itself is not a crime to be dealt with like dope dealers, robbers and thieves. Jumping a fence, swimming a river, floating a boat into another county should not be met with gun fire and violence...turning them back is probably harsh enough.

http://joe1701833.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/05/4243058-best-state-for-illegal-immigrants-competition-wpoll