Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit PowerIsKnowledge's column >>

POWERISKNOWLEDGE

Home Page
Gashki'ewizi
Articles Posted: 150  Links Seeded: 1793
Member Since: 9/2008  Last Seen: 5/17/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

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

Seeded on Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:05 AM EDT
Read ArticleArticle Source: Jack and Jill Politics
us-news, police, arizona, abuse, racial-profiling, brown-folks, passbooks
Seeded by PowerIsKnowledge
Advertise | AdChoices

When have the handcuffs ever been ON POLICE?

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'?

I call bull on this.

This is nothing but a straight up legalization of racial profiling.

I live in a city where there's a large illegal IRISH and POLISH population. Why do I get the feeling that if there was a similar law in my town, the folks arrested under it wouldn't be from those neighborhoods?

Hmmmmm…

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

  • PowerIsKnowledge's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (475)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4
PowerIsKnowledge

This law is wrong, and I know that the FIRST folks it will target are Latinos, but they’ll work their way down the line, and ‘ suddenly’, I’m willing to bet, they’ll find some reason to start targeting Black folks. Not that they need a reason, but this will give them another one.

All minorities should fear this law because this could be their future.

  • 32 votes
#1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:06 AM EDT
Darthfrodo

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?????

  • 25 votes
#1.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:47 AM EDT
DWF

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.

  • 26 votes
#1.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:01 AM EDT
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.

  • 22 votes
#1.3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:03 AM EDT
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?

  • 22 votes
#1.4 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:13 AM EDT
RhondaC-663839

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.)

  • 13 votes
#1.5 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:21 AM EDT
Jon Chicago

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!!" :-)

  • 12 votes
#1.6 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:24 AM EDT
Norcal2

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.

  • 5 votes
#1.7 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:35 AM EDT
rkymtnwoman

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!

  • 13 votes
#1.8 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:46 AM EDT
Fred-45144444

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!

  • 11 votes
#1.9 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:58 AM EDT
Norcal2

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.

  • 16 votes
#1.10 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:16 AM EDT
Nick46

"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.

  • 2 votes
#1.11 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:26 AM EDT
Luke Wright

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!

  • 6 votes
#1.12 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:37 AM EDT
Luke Wright

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!

  • 6 votes
#1.13 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:38 AM EDT
RhondaC-663839

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

  • 12 votes
#1.14 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:47 AM EDT
Nick46

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.

  • 4 votes
#1.15 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:58 AM EDT
upswing

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...

  • 7 votes
#1.16 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:00 AM EDT
upswing

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."

  • 15 votes
#1.17 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:04 AM EDT
Norcal2

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

  • 13 votes
#1.18 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:06 AM EDT
J. W. Welch

Power

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

  • 7 votes
#1.19 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:48 AM EDT
DWF

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.

    #1.20 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:48 AM EDT
    Real World Engineer

    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.

    • 10 votes
    #1.21 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:49 AM EDT
    waffle

    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

    • 17 votes
    #1.22 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:49 AM EDT
    J. W. Welch

    Power

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

    • 2 votes
    #1.23 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:50 AM EDT
    upswing

    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.

    • 3 votes
    #1.24 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:54 AM EDT
    DWF

    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.

    • 4 votes
    #1.25 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:03 PM EDT
    Norcal2

    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.

    • 5 votes
    #1.26 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:13 PM EDT
    DWF

    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.

    • 1 vote
    #1.27 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:14 PM EDT
    AdipicAcid

    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.

    • 11 votes
    #1.28 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:15 PM EDT
    PivotalAxis

    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...

    • 3 votes
    #1.29 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:15 PM EDT
    DWF

    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?

      #1.30 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:23 PM EDT
      H.H.-1105932

      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?

      • 5 votes
      #1.31 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:49 PM EDT
      rkymtnwoman

      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

      • 6 votes
      #1.32 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:54 PM EDT
      JoulesBeef

      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.

      • 12 votes
      #1.33 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:15 PM EDT
      PivotalAxis

      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.

      • 1 vote
      #1.34 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:20 PM EDT
      Fred-45144444

      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?

      • 4 votes
      #1.35 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:52 PM EDT
      langoley

      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!!!!

      • 4 votes
      #1.36 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:52 PM EDT
      Louie Lou

      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.

      • 2 votes
      #1.37 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:18 PM EDT
      Schroedingers Cat

      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.

      • 4 votes
      #1.38 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:19 PM EDT
      PivotalAxis

      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.

      • 1 vote
      #1.39 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:25 PM EDT
      jkrystof

      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?

      • 2 votes
      #1.40 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:41 PM EDT
      Twofox

      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.

      • 1 vote
      #1.41 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:03 PM EDT
      jkrystof

      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?

      • 2 votes
      #1.42 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:12 PM EDT
      Twofox

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

        #1.43 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:25 PM EDT
        H.H.-1105932

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

        • 1 vote
        #1.44 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:53 PM EDT
        Karen in Los Angeles

        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.

        • 1 vote
        #1.45 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:31 PM EDT
        Karen in Los Angeles

        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.

        • 1 vote
        #1.46 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:33 PM EDT
        H.H.-1105932

        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

        • 5 votes
        #1.47 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:34 PM EDT
        jkrystof

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

        • 1 vote
        #1.48 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:43 PM EDT
        H.H.-1105932

        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.

        • 1 vote
        #1.49 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:50 PM EDT
        jkrystof

        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?

        • 1 vote
        #1.50 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:53 PM EDT
        AdipicAcid

        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.

        • 5 votes
        #1.51 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:05 PM EDT
        Mac-295039

        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.

        • 2 votes
        #1.52 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:15 PM EDT
        eriq samson

        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

        • 4 votes
        #1.53 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:17 PM EDT
        Mac-295039

        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.

        • 1 vote
        #1.54 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:21 PM EDT
        jkrystof

        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.

          #1.55 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:24 PM EDT
          PivotalAxis

          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

          • 1 vote
          #1.56 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:27 PM EDT
          H.H.-1105932

          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.

          • 1 vote
          #1.57 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:47 PM EDT
          AdipicAcid

          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.

          • 2 votes
          #1.58 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:59 PM EDT
          1steelghost

          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....

          • 2 votes
          #1.59 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:09 PM EDT
          jkrystof

          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.

            #1.60 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:40 PM EDT
            Brandon-801865

            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.

            • 4 votes
            #1.61 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:57 PM EDT
            Schroedingers Cat

            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!

            • 2 votes
            #1.62 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:00 PM EDT
            AdipicAcid

            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.

            • 3 votes
            #1.63 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:44 PM EDT
            Ben-1268009

            "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.

            • 1 vote
            #1.64 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:49 PM EDT
            PivotalAxis

            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.

              #1.65 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:16 PM EDT
              Karen in Los Angeles

              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.

                #1.66 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:50 PM EDT
                Karen in Los Angeles

                My friend Joe -

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

                  #1.67 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:51 PM EDT
                  Karen in Los Angeles

                  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.

                    #1.68 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:58 PM EDT
                    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.

                    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?

                    • 1 vote
                    #1.69 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:30 PM EDT
                    D. Craig C

                    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.

                    • 1 vote
                    #1.70 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:47 PM EDT
                    PivotalAxis

                    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

                      #1.71 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:48 AM EDT
                      PowerIsKnowledge

                      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.

                      And herein lies the major problem.

                      Instead of working with those who are working for the country, the right-wing has chosen to work against the country and obstructing those who do. Had they been working for the country they wouldn't have needed to pass this hateful, spiteful and mean law that the right-wing lawmakers happen to know is hateful, spiteful, and mean. But they have to do something to appease their followers who insist upon following their obstructive ways. They believe it'll bring them votes, instead, they might be losing seats in New York, California, Texas, Arizona and Florida.

                      Census mail results could be trouble for 5 states

                      The best laid plans and all.

                      • 2 votes
                      #1.72 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 6:32 AM EDT
                      PivotalAxis

                      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

                        #1.73 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:01 PM EDT
                        H.H.-1105932

                        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.

                        • 4 votes
                        #1.74 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:15 PM EDT
                        thathomie

                        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

                          #1.75 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:32 PM EDT
                          H.H.-1105932

                          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.

                          • 2 votes
                          #1.76 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:03 PM EDT
                          Andromeda-510639

                          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.

                          • 1 vote
                          #1.77 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:10 PM EDT
                          upswing

                          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! :-)

                          • 3 votes
                          #1.78 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:52 PM EDT
                          Playtoe

                          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.

                          • 3 votes
                          #1.79 - Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:17 AM EDT
                          PivotalAxis

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

                            #1.80 - Wed May 5, 2010 12:29 AM EDT
                            Reply
                            Rob-314344

                            PIK - I don't think the police will target blacks, but I bet they'd be more willing to target Hindu's, S.E. Asians, and Arabs.

                            I'd bet that within the next 6 months, Arizona will become the most predominately white state in the union. There will be a mass ethnic migration. Gee I wonder who will do most of the physical labor in Arizona for minimum wage?

                            • 14 votes
                            Reply#2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:31 AM EDT
                            Beckyal

                            Rob, do you know how many illegals we have from Africa or from Ireland? Anyone who has police dealings should have to show their papers! Illegals come all countries and don't just cross the border but also overstay their visas. Time for all them to go home. Americans should not have to pay for them or a child of an illegal for their entire life. Welfare should not be given to anchor babies regardless of race. I don't care where an illegal comes from, they don't belong in the US. I would be willing to show my papers for a couple of years until the federal government gets its act together. Why are people upset to show papers to protect America?

                            • 6 votes
                            #2.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:48 AM EDT
                            upswing

                            Beckyal:

                            I would be willing to show my papers for a couple of years until the federal government gets its act together. Why are people upset to show papers to protect America?

                            I understand, and in some ways share, your frustration with illegal immigrants.

                            But the America you're looking to "protect" isn't an America that is true to its core principles of personal freedom and the right to resist government intrusion and tyranny.

                            We have more police in this country than we know what to do with. Being in the country illegally is a crime that those police can and should respond to.

                            But creating what is effectively a police state, in which we all are expected to continually prove and re-prove our loyalty to the government of the meoment -- "Show me your papers!" -- isn't a logical choice in a free country.

                            And if you believe that such a measure, once instituted, would ever be temporary, then I wonder what your standard for that belief is. i.e. How often does any government return any increased power that it has been given by, or has grabbed from, the people?

                            • 18 votes
                            #2.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:13 AM EDT
                            charnello

                            But creating what is effectively a police state, in which we all are expected to continually prove and re-prove our loyalty to the government of the moment -- "Show me your papers!" -- isn't a logical choice in a free country.

                            Exactly.

                            There's nothing free or brave about the government requiring one to carry their state issued identification cards at all times or risk being put in jail.

                            • 15 votes
                            #2.3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:46 AM EDT
                            AdipicAcid

                            Anyone who has police dealings should have to show their papers!

                            Ah yes... "Papers please!" Jawohl, mein Fraulein.

                            Then again, perhaps you look fetching in a Brown Shirt, so maybe it's just the fashion.

                            • 9 votes
                            #2.4 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:40 AM EDT
                            RhondaC-663839

                            Of the 3million + estimated illegals who cross the border every year. 23,000+ are estimated to be middle eastern. Anyone care to figure out how many of those are terrorists, who came specifically to kill americans?

                            • 2 votes
                            #2.5 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:50 AM EDT
                            upswing

                            RhondaC:

                            . 23,000+ are estimated to be middle eastern. Anyone care to figure out how many of those are terrorists, who came specifically to kill americans?

                            Twelve.

                            • 10 votes
                            #2.6 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:06 AM EDT
                            waffle

                            Hey, the border with Canada is unopened. I know that as a programmer, my skin tone has passed out of chalky white and is approaching minty green. I think I'll sue the police up in Maracopa county for failing to check my citizenship papers. And then I'll stick the already floundering state economy with paying the court costs of my ridiculous, but successful, lawsuit.

                            That's what this law says. This law is idiotic.

                            • 6 votes
                            #2.7 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:52 AM EDT
                            rkymtnwoman

                            just like with torture and extraordinary rendition

                            A government that does this @!$%# to "them" will soon be doing it to US

                            • 6 votes
                            #2.8 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:54 PM EDT
                            jmorris

                            Rob-314344

                            PIK - I don't think the police will target blacks, but I bet they'd be more willing to target Hindu's, S.E. Asians, and Arabs.

                            I'd bet that within the next 6 months, Arizona will become the most predominately white state in the union. There will be a mass ethnic migration. Gee I wonder who will do most of the physical labor in Arizona for minimum wage?

                            I will bet that within the next 6 months there will *still* be the same number of illegal immigrants working illegally in Arizona. The police won't bust the employers, maybe bust some workers but they will be quickly replaced by other illegals.

                            All this law will do is get rid of the "excess" illegal population and cause the rest to keep their head down in the"white" areas of town. As long as they "know their place" I doubt if they will be hassled.

                            No one in Arizona wants to get rid of the cheap illegal labor, they just don't want to see them in public. Can you imagine some Arizona cop busting a businessman in Arizona for hiring illegals? Do you think any of the fancy golf resorts where 80% of the service staff and 100% of the groundskeepers are illegals will be affected? Not if the cops want to keep their jobs. Sure there will be some token rousts of workers but after they cart off all the "illegals" they will just get some more to do the same work for the same low pay.

                            Now I can see a mass exodus of minority *citizens* and legal residents leaving Arizona, who would want to live in a state where you are presumed to be guilty strictly by you heritage?

                            • 5 votes
                            #2.9 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:08 PM EDT
                            Twofox

                            Like someone else said. Having to show papers that I have health insurance is fair, yet someone who isn't a citizen shouldn't have to show proof?

                            Bull@!$%#.

                            I live in Tucson, I see the results of this kind of thinking every day. I've had friends killed by illegals.

                            So instead of a law that allows cops to help with the issue, what do you propose?

                            • 1 vote
                            #2.10 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:17 PM EDT
                            Ben-1268009

                            I propose that anyone living in this country should be considered a citizen of this country for the duration of their stay in this country... just like our founding fathers did when they wrote the constitution.

                            • 1 vote
                            #2.11 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:54 PM EDT
                            Reply
                            fstwarrior

                            I'll type it slow so you can understand it, ok? I L L E G A L.

                            I'm a minority (Chickasaw) and I don't fear this law. In fact, I wish we had stronger immigration laws in the 15 and 1600's, then we wouldn't be having this problem.

                            • 12 votes
                            #3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:44 AM EDT
                            bonos_rama

                            Let ME type THIS slow:

                            L E G A L citizens will now be harrassed - possibly daily - by this law, in violation of the 4th amendment (the right of a person to be secure in their houses, PAPERS and effects against unlawful SEARCH and seizure).

                            • 18 votes
                            #3.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:57 AM EDT
                            Beckyal

                            bonos, where do you get this? The law prohibits people from being stopped just because of race. So what if someone has been stopped for a traffic violation and is asked for his papers? maybe crime of all types will go down. If you don't deal with the police you don't have to show you ID. Just don't speed, rob, or murder and you don't need to show your ID.

                            • 5 votes
                            #3.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:51 AM EDT
                            inoubliable

                            you want to know where it starts? yesterday i'm out shopping with my children. my oldest child is mine from a previous relationship. he's one quarter American Indian, one quarter Hispanic, and half White. my younger children are as pale as a ghost with blonde hair and blue eyes - like me. in the dairy section of the store, i overhear a woman telling her husband that i "clearly can have children" so i "should have adopted an American instead of some Mexican". my child heard this. and was shocked. at the checkout lane a young man snickered with his two male friends - "i guess they didn't exactly close the borders if the mini-Mexicans are still being let in. hope she's paying him in pesos to carry her bags." at this point, my 9 year old looks at him and says "you're very rude. but that's okay. it's people like you that help people like me learn about patience. have a great day. jerk."

                            *sigh*

                            that's where it starts. does it get to the point where i have to carry his birth certificate with me at all times? i don't know. i've had a ready statement for years when i'm asked on "where did this little guy come from" ("i'll tell you but it's sort of a disgusting story. it started with the contractions at 3 am..."). i don't know how i'll handle it if he's assumed to be illegal somehow by anyone in authority.

                            • 17 votes
                            #3.3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:59 AM EDT
                            Little Sure Shot

                            So what if you have to have the child's bc. Why are people acting as if proof of citizenship is such an intrusion? You have to have ID to write a check, buy liquor and when stopped for a traffic violation. This is just one more piece of ID that will have to carried.

                            • 2 votes
                            #3.4 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:20 AM EDT
                            charnello

                            have to have ID to write a check, buy liquor and when stopped for a traffic violation.

                            And now, you have to have ID to walk down the street in Arizona or risk going to jail.

                            The Forefathers would be horrified at the thought.

                            • 16 votes
                            #3.5 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:48 AM EDT
                            inoubliable

                            so i should have no problem with possibly having to carry around the birth certificate of one child but not the two who are clearly White Americans? *roll eyes* get a clue.

                            • 16 votes
                            #3.6 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:56 AM EDT
                            bonos_rama

                            So what if you have to have the child's bc. Why are people acting as if proof of citizenship is such an intrusion? You have to have ID to write a check, buy liquor and when stopped for a traffic violation. This is just one more piece of ID that will have to carried.

                            tell me what ELSE you admire about communism under the Soviet Union? Because soviet citizens had to carry their ID everywhere, too. You should admire the U.S.A. and its freedoms, not communist Russia and their lack of freedom.

                            • 15 votes
                            #3.7 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:02 AM EDT
                            Rigbee Dugane

                            And now, you have to have ID to walk down the street in Arizona or risk going to jail.

                            Making stuff up to support your argument doesn't really help your side at all.

                            • 3 votes
                            #3.8 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:07 AM EDT
                            WillBoyd

                            charnello

                            The Forefathers would be horrified at the thought.

                            Yet at the same time the perpetrators would have been most likely hanged or shot. So we would not have had the problem we currently do.

                            • 1 vote
                            #3.9 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:08 AM EDT
                            Rigbee Dugane

                            And now, you have to have ID to walk down the street in Arizona or risk going to jail.

                            Making stuff up to support your argument doesn't really help your side at all.

                            • 1 vote
                            #3.10 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:09 AM EDT
                            charnello

                            Making stuff up to support your argument doesn't really help your side at all.

                            So the Arizona law does not give officers the right to ask anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant for their papers?

                            Or does it happen only when they're driving and commit an offense or walk into the police station?

                            Or when they happen to have already broken the law and the police are called to the scene?

                            Or is it only "probable cause", which we all know the police use in the strictest sense of the law and that there is no possible way for it to be abused?

                            WillBoyd,

                            I don't think killing people for being in a country illegally is a solution.

                            That being said, immigration is a huge, thorny problem.

                            • 8 votes
                            #3.11 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:23 AM EDT
                            WillBoyd

                            Charnello,

                            Nor do I. What I was saying is that things would have been handled in a different manner 200+ years ago.

                            I will add this thought, if I am walking down the street in my town and I am stopped by the Police and can not provide them with identification they have the right to detain me until such time as I can provide it. What is the difference between this and with what you have said?

                            • 3 votes
                            #3.12 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:36 AM EDT
                            charnello

                            WillBoyd,

                            I have never had that problem. Well, "never" being 3 times. Once on the beach (and no alcohol), once riding my bike, once at a park. 3 different times, 3 different places (2 states), 3 different cops (I'm pretty sure). I didn't have my ID, the cop wasn't happy, but I didn't have it. As an American citizen, I'm pretty happy it worked that way. I've been to countries where not having an ID gets one taken to jail (which could lead to worse things) and I am very glad I live in a country where that is not the norm.

                            And, perhaps it's my experience leading me to ignorance, but my understanding is that you're only required to show ID to a cop when driving (or if he's standing there when purchasing alcohol)?

                            Again, I'm not suggesting that being an illegal immigrant is a good thing, but I do not agree that cops should be detaining what could very well be an American citizen just because they do not have their identification card. That sounds horribly wrong to my ears.

                            • 8 votes
                            #3.13 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:37 AM EDT
                            waffle

                            fstwarrior, let me say this slowly:

                            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

                            and

                            No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

                            There is no criteria in the law for determining who can and cannot be stopped. The closest we come is instructions to stop anyone who looks like an illegal alien. Now, go read those two quotes again. I'll wait.

                            See that second one? That one about "No State..shall make or enforce laws..[to]deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That means the State of Arizona, my state, by the way, cannot pass or enforce a law that targets people who look illegal. And in this state, that means people who look Hispanic (or, given the average Phoenician's contact with these things, looks Navajo, Apache, Tohono O'odham, Pascua Yaqui, etc.).

                            Since they cannot target one group and not the other, which is what this law does, that makes such searches unreasonable (illegal is certainly unreasonable!), making anything they do in terms of enforcing this law a direct violation of that first quote, you know, the bit about "secure in their..papers"?

                            Now, here's the kicker. Under the law, citizens who believe that the police departments are insufficiently vigorous in applying this ill defined law and its nonexistent criteria may be sued. Further, if they win, the State of Arizona must foot the entire bill for the lawsuit.

                            So, enforce the law and get sued in Federal court for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments. Or fail to enforce a badly written, racist law and get sued by lawyer happy right wing lunatics itching to waste taxpayer money on their paranoid delusions of insufficient persecution.

                            This is a bad law. A staggeringly bad law. Wonder who wrote it? Oh yeah...

                            http://www.racewire.org/archives/2010/04/rachel_maddow_exposes_racist_origins_of_sb1070.html

                            • 7 votes
                            #3.14 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:08 PM EDT
                            WillBoyd

                            waffle,

                            See that second one? That one about "No State..shall make or enforce laws..[to]deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That means the State of Arizona, my state, by the way, cannot pass or enforce a law that targets people who look illegal

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

                            please check out the link. It contains some good info. It does not say that you can stop someone who looks illegal but you can stop them if they appear to be committing or about to commit a crime.

                            “Stop and identify” statutes are laws in the United States that require persons detained under certain circumstances to identify themselves to a police officer.[1]

                            In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that such laws did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination

                            • 2 votes
                            #3.15 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:57 PM EDT
                            jmorris

                            please check out the link. It contains some good info. It does not say that you can stop someone who looks illegal but you can stop them if they appear to be committing or about to commit a crime.

                            And Arizona just made it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally. So if they "appear" to be committing the State crime of being an illegal immigrant (not the Federal Statute) the police are allowed to stop them and ask for proof of citizenship.

                            If they cannot provide it they are held in detention until it can be proven or they are turned over to ICE (the Federal Authorities). No limit on how long, or where such detention is to be, no provisions for what defines "proof" of citizenship. Pretty wide open.

                            See how this goes?

                            • 4 votes
                            #3.16 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:13 PM EDT
                            Reply
                            dwillie

                            My fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha, is scheduled to hold its convention in Phoenix this year. I will be petitioning the fraternity to cancel it or move it and will be willing to make a contribution toward any deposits lost or penalties incurred due to the cancellation.

                            • 17 votes
                            Reply#4 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:51 AM EDT
                            TheSkeptic-1418965Deleted
                            Beckyal

                            dwille, your lose. If you don't like the law you need to pay the police to secure the Az border, tell the federal government to do their job and secure the border, pay more in taxes to support the illegals, etc. You are fear-mongering but saying something is going to happen when you have no proof it is going to happen.

                            • 3 votes
                            #4.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:54 AM EDT
                            redsfan

                            Good for you dwillie...I'm glad some Americans are concerned enough about this unconstitutional law to stand up for their beliefs and let Arizona know that it's not ok to target a certain portion of American citizens for "special treatment". Thanks.

                            • 16 votes
                            #4.3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:08 AM EDT
                            explorerdog

                            I agree it's not ok to give special treatment although thats exactly what they have been getting for far too long. No prosecution for being inthe country illegally, driving without licenses, no insurance, free medical benefits etc. etc. etc. This action by AZ is way overdue.

                            • 1 vote
                            #4.4 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:12 AM EDT
                            explorerdog

                            dwillie, why don't you stand fast on your misguided principles and pay the whole thing, not some piddly contribution. Make a committment, step up and while you are at it, go to your local hospital and pledge to offset their losses to all the illegals that have name unknown beside their charges on the ledger.

                            • 1 vote
                            #4.5 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:17 AM EDT
                            upswing

                            exploredog:

                            I agree it's not ok to give special treatment although thats exactly what they have been getting for far too long. No prosecution for being inthe country illegally, driving without licenses, no insurance, free medical benefits etc. etc. etc. This action by AZ is way overdue.

                            It sounds as though you're saying that the problem is that the laws already on the books are not being enforced when it comes to illegal immigrants.

                            If that's the case, then wouldn't it make more sense to enforce those laws rather than to impose a blanket demand on the entire populaion of a state?

                            • 11 votes
                            #4.6 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 AM EDT
                            explorerdog

                            Of course it does and that would be the simple way of solving the problem. Unfortunately it is not, has not, nor will it be done, because there are far too many that have motivations to prevent it. To deny that sanctuary cities don't exist is insane, I have lived in them. Lobby groups want to protect a steady supply of very cheap labor because it bolsters the profit margin, are they motivated to make sure politicians do not enforce the laws, are hospitals able to turn away anybody even though the law addressed on ly emergency life threatening issues, no they get sued. Take a stand against the most rascist organization in the country, LA RAZA, you know THE PEOPLE and you commit political suicide. Yes there must be solid enforcement action and this is a very positive first step. No amnesty, not now, not ever again. It should never even have been done under Reagan.

                            • 1 vote
                            #4.7 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:46 AM EDT
                            Rigbee Dugane

                            And now, you have to have ID to walk down the street in Arizona or risk going to jail.

                            Making stuff up to support your argument doesn't really help your side at all.

                              #4.8 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:11 AM EDT
                              LizLiz

                              dwillie,

                              Good for you, I hope it works out. I just read that an airline had to cancel flights to Arizona due to the fact that many vacationers have cancelled their flights and are planning to vacation elsewhere.

                              Hit em where it hurts. Their wallet.

                              Nothing to get their base voters riled up like a little dose of discrimination and fear. Go GOP! Show the world what you really stand for.

                              • 11 votes
                              #4.9 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:28 AM EDT
                              upswing

                              exploredog:

                              Of course it does and that would be the simple way of solving the problem. Unfortunately it is not, has not, nor will it be done, because there are far too many that have motivations to prevent it

                              Then why wouldn't these same people prevent enforcement of the new law..?

                              • 2 votes
                              #4.10 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:15 PM EDT
                              J. W. Welch

                              redsfan

                              Your 4.3

                              I thought the AZ law was aimed at illegals.

                              How did it morph into targeting American citizens for "special treatment" as you claim?

                                #4.11 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:25 PM EDT
                                redsfan

                                J.W. - because the law says that the police may stop anyone who they have "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant. In Arizona, that means that hispanic American citizens will be stopped because their physical appearance is similar to that of illegal Mexican immigrants. Thus the "special treatment" of American citizens who "look" illegal. For example...here's a local AZ paper's perspective of this thing...some things to be concerned about...

                                Sahuarita Police Chief John Harris, head of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, opposed the new law before it was signed Friday, but said he is consulting with fellow chiefs and legal counsel to develop a state standard for enforcing it.....Legal experts say the phrases “reasonable suspicion” and “reasonable attempt ... when practicable” are a mine field for officers.

                                Nan Stockholm Walden, vice president and general counsel of Farmers Investment Co., said the passage and signing of the law has created a climate of fear among persons of color and that while the law is a state statute, locally it appears to have encouraged Border Patrol agents to stop vehicles for no apparent reason and to ask excessive questions at the Tubac checkpoint.

                                Walden said a Hispanic senior plant manager at FICO whose family has lived in Arizona for generations has been stopped and released five times in the past two weeks by Border Patrol agents on his short commute to work, and that none of the stops involved traffic infractions or any other reason that was explained.

                                Immigration Law Hotly Debated Locally

                                • 9 votes
                                #4.12 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:36 PM EDT
                                fstwarrior

                                Try reading the rest of the law that states, after being stopped for an infraction of the law, an officer "may" inquire.

                                Ya'll need to come down here and live - maybe your thoughts would change if you had to walk a mile in our moccasins.

                                  #4.13 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:31 PM EDT
                                  dwillie

                                  exploredog said...

                                  dwillie, why don't you stand fast on your misguided principles and pay the whole thing...

                                  Two reasons:

                                  1. I can't afford to pay the whole thing. If I could, I would.
                                  2. I don't have to pay the whole thing. Given that our fraternity numbers about 250,000 members, the per member cost of withdrawing is negligible.

                                  All that said, I'm more than willing to beat the highest individual donation to cover the cost of pulling the Convention out of Arizona.

                                  • 5 votes
                                  #4.14 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:03 PM EDT
                                  Reply
                                  ShawnD19

                                  I don't suppose you guys saw the article by msnbc about the 69 illegal immigrants found in an Arizona drop house? You want to pretend that the law in Arizona singles out Mexicans or non whites but it makes no mentionof color or race. In my state you must carry your ID with you. I have no problem with this. It would seem that any American would be okay with this effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration which cost our country billions of dollars. Can any one name another country that allows so many people to enter the country illegally? Arizona is doing the job that our federal government should be doing. Crying racism and racial profiling is the strategy of those who support illegal immigrants breaking the law. We have become so politically correct as to our own demise.

                                  • 3 votes
                                  Reply#5 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:07 AM EDT
                                  upswing

                                  ShawnD:

                                  We have become so politically correct as to our own demise.

                                  You think that the 4th Amendment is too "politically correct"?

                                  Maybe you're forgetting the lifestyle and politics of the people who wrote and enacted it?

                                  • 10 votes
                                  #5.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:20 AM EDT
                                  bonos_rama

                                  When did American freedom become too "politically correct"? What do you enjoy better - soviet style living? Chinese communism?

                                  • 8 votes
                                  #5.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:04 AM EDT
                                  waffle

                                  Garbage. This is not a binary situation. One can detest this horrible, racist law and not support illegal immigration. Stop setting up false dichotomies to try and defend this dog of a bill.

                                  • 5 votes
                                  #5.3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:11 PM EDT
                                  redsfan

                                  Agreed waffle...illegal immigration is a serious and complex problem in this country, partly because it has been ignored for so many years. It needs a serious and complex solution...not this horrible, politically-motivated Arizona law that does so much harm and does very little good.

                                  • 4 votes
                                  #5.4 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:38 PM EDT
                                  PowerIsKnowledge

                                  Power

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

                                  I didn't say that. The author of the article did.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #5.5 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:42 PM EDT
                                  PowerIsKnowledge

                                  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.

                                  When haven't you had to prove you are insured? The first thing asked in a doctors office, hospital, or emergency room is proof of insurance so don't blame this on Obama.

                                  • 3 votes
                                  #5.6 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:45 PM EDT
                                  PowerIsKnowledge

                                  bonos, where do you get this? The law prohibits people from being stopped just because of race.

                                  This is not a true statement. Drive-by racism, Racial profiling charges: How should Texas respond? What's Race Got To Do With It?

                                  • 4 votes
                                  #5.7 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:15 PM EDT
                                  Reply
                                  ShawnD19

                                  Illegal immigrants are here illegally.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  Reply#6 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:08 AM EDT
                                  waffle

                                  Perhaps. But do not try and pretend this is the only solution and if one fails to support this bill, one must necessarily support illegal immigration.

                                  There are other solutions than making it a crime to be ambulating while Hispanic.

                                  • 7 votes
                                  #6.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:12 PM EDT
                                  fstwarrior

                                  Explain.

                                    #6.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:32 PM EDT
                                    Reply
                                    Tyler Durden-330839

                                    I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet.

                                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijeXGv9QLRc

                                    hmmm...

                                    • 2 votes
                                    Reply#7 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:08 AM EDT
                                    PowerIsKnowledge

                                    I'd forgotten about this and it's still timely.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #7.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:24 PM EDT
                                    Reply
                                    ShawnD19

                                    What is your solution everyone?

                                      Reply#8 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:09 AM EDT
                                      Door King

                                      Repeal human nature?

                                      • 2 votes
                                      #8.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:27 AM EDT
                                      Tyler Durden-330839

                                      Go after the Employers

                                      Legalise Pot

                                      Tell the Catholic Church to shove their birth control policy

                                      Bring the Troops home

                                      Arrest the Bush Administration

                                      Make Levis and shoes in the US

                                      Feel free to add.

                                      • 15 votes
                                      #8.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:19 AM EDT
                                      ming-315743

                                      stop using tax dollars to help those businesses and home owners who were too greedy and now face default. I like your list.

                                      • 4 votes
                                      #8.3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:08 AM EDT
                                      Tyler Durden-330839

                                      I'm totally amazed that the right wants to prevent women from having an abortion and then have the balls to complain about illegals/minorities having too many kids.

                                      • 10 votes
                                      #8.4 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:19 AM EDT
                                      waffle

                                      The solution is to enforce the laws on the books for those companies who knowingly and exploitative employ illegal immigrants. But to do so would anger powerful lobbies within the Arizona Republican Party. Rather than pursue real reform, it is far easier, and more beneficial to the xenophobic Arizona Republican base to pass unconstitutional legislation and rely on expensive court cases to strike the law down.

                                      • 6 votes
                                      #8.5 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:15 PM EDT
                                      jmorris

                                      The solution is to enforce the laws on the books for those companies who knowingly and exploitative employ illegal immigrants. But to do so would anger powerful lobbies within the Arizona Republican Party.

                                      Yep and that's the reason this law, while it may reduce the number of illegal immigrants, will *not* reduce in the slightest the number if illegal *workers* in Arizona.

                                      Some will be replaced as they are swept up in ID checks but they will quickly be replaced by other illegal immigrants. The net effect of this law on the illegal worker population in Arizona will be zero.

                                      But the Hispanics will quickly learn to stay out the "white" areas of the towns and cities, and that's all the Upstanding White People of Arizona really care about anyway.

                                      • 5 votes
                                      #8.6 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:25 PM EDT
                                      PivotalAxis

                                      um... Arizona is using everify just like many other states are, to help in curbing it on the employer end of the spectrum... They also do have tough laws on the employer end.

                                      This does not take away from Arizona being a transit state to other parts of the United States including a neighborhood near you.

                                      http://cis.org/287greport

                                      Some of our findings:

                                      • About 1,000 officers from 67 law enforcement agencies have been trained and participate in the program. With 9 new agencies joining and a handful of agencies dropping out in 2009, the total number of participating agencies as of October 2009 is 73.
                                      • 287(g) officers lodged immigration charges on more than 81,000 illegal or criminal aliens between January 2006 and November 2008, according to data provided to us by ICE.
                                      • In 2008, the number of 287(g) arrests (45,368) was equal to one-fifth of all criminal aliens identified by ICE in prisons and jails nationwide that year (221,085). The program has flagged a large number of known serious and/or violent offenders, as well as some low-level offenders still at the bottom of the criminal behavior escalator. Illegal aliens targeted by the program have been identified as a result of involvement in local law-breaking in addition to immigration law-breaking.
                                      • While 287(g) agencies use the authority mainly to identify and process illegal aliens who have committed additional crimes, Congress never intended the program to be limited to that use. Lawmakers intended for local agency partners to use the authority for local law enforcement priorities and according to local needs, which may or may not be the same as federal priorities.
                                      • Participating agencies credit the 287(g) program as a major factor in reduced local crime rates, smaller inmate populations, and lower criminal justice costs.
                                      • 287(g) is cost-effective — much less expensive than other criminal alien identification programs such as Secure Communities and Fugitive Operations. For example, in 2008 ICE spent $219 million to remove 34,000 fugitive aliens (mostly criminals). In 2008, ICE was given $40 million for 287(g), which produced more than 45,000 arrests of aliens who were involved in state and local crimes. In Harris County, Texas, the billion-dollar ICE Secure Communities interoperability program found about 1,718 removable aliens in its first six months beginning late in 2008; meanwhile the locally paid 287(g) officers in the same jail system charged about 5,000 criminal aliens over the same time period.
                                      • 287(g) is a force multiplier. In 2008, the Colorado state 287(g) unit alone made 777 immigration arrests. In that same year the entire ICE investigations office based in Denver, which covers all of Colorado and several other states, made a total of 1,594 arrests. In Maricopa County, Ariz., the local ICE detention and removal manager supervises five ICE deportation agents, who are supplemented by 64 additional locally paid county jail 287(g) officers who also identify and process criminal aliens.
                                      • The largest number of agreements have been signed for correctional 287(g) programs. These programs were responsible for 91 percent of the 287(g) arrests over the period we studied.
                                      • The task force/investigative programs provide equally important crime-fighting benefits and are a useful tool to address such illegal immigration-related crime problems as alien smuggling, drugs, street gangs, and identity theft.
                                      • The Colorado, Arizona, and Alabama 287(g) programs have boosted ICE efforts to combat alien smuggling, which has been neglected since the agency’s formation.
                                      • Notwithstanding allegations from immigrant and civil liberties advocates, there have been no confirmed instances of racial profiling, discrimination, or other abuse of authority under the 287(g) program. There is no evidence whatsoever of a “chilling effect” on crime reporting in the 287(g) jurisdictions.
                                      • The waiting list for 287(g) is long — reportedly one to three years from the time of request to join until implementation. A number of agencies have launched interim programs in cooperation with ICE that can put a significant dent in the criminal alien population while they are waiting. In Gwinnett County, Ga., such a preliminary surge screening operation of interviews at the jail in early 2009 resulted in deportation holds on nearly 1,000 criminal aliens in 26 days. Two-thirds had committed very serious and/or violent crimes, and the rest were arrested on lesser charges that time, although many had more serious prior offenses in their background.
                                      • The biggest obstacle to improving and expanding the 287(g) program is the lack of funding for bed space to detain illegal aliens discovered by local agencies to have committed crimes. As a result, ICE currently is removing fewer than half of the criminal aliens identified under 287(g). Several states have submitted proposals to ICE to help alleviate this problem, but ICE has not acted to increase funding for bed space, even as it claims to prioritize the removal of criminal aliens.
                                        #8.7 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:09 PM EDT
                                        Reply
                                        TheSkeptic-1418965Deleted
                                        chorvat

                                        some people may want to read the actual law before going crazy about profiling, it has specifics about asking people for their id's, people are not just going to be pulled iover randomly and this law does NOT allow this

                                        • 2 votes
                                        Reply#10 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:13 AM EDT
                                        LizLiz

                                        Read post 9.4

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #10.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:31 AM EDT
                                        Reply
                                        aji

                                        Ok how bout this, add a law that makes it mandatory for everyone to carry an ID, i would have NO problem with that. I'm part Italian so people have thought that I was hispanic before, so I guess not all white people are safe, guess what...I'm really not worried, neither is my mexican friend in Arizona, guess why...He's not illegal!

                                        • 2 votes
                                        Reply#11 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:18 AM EDT
                                        PowerIsKnowledge

                                        Ok how bout this, add a law that makes it mandatory for everyone to carry an ID,

                                        Everyone already carry some form of ID: driver's license, state issued pictured IDs, pass ports. military IDs.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #11.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 PM EDT
                                        PowerIsKnowledge

                                        Someone mentioned that we loss our freedom by microchip implantation. Here are the consequences to that.

                                        Time Enough? Consequences of Human Microchip Implantation

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #11.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:41 PM EDT
                                        Ben-1268009

                                        My 3 year old son doesn't carry any form of ID... and I find the idea that children of any age all carry ID to be rather ridiculous. The idea that any of us should be required to carry ID with us at all times to also be ridiculous.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #11.3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:32 PM EDT
                                        Mn Man

                                        Everyone already carry some form of ID: driver's license, state issued pictured IDs, pass ports. military IDs

                                        I don't. In fact, I don't even have an I.D. And I don't need one either. Nor do I want to be told that I have to.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #11.4 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:45 AM EDT
                                        Reply
                                        gobbledegook

                                        Nixon had 3 enemies lists. Was the 30000 name enemies list all Asian/white mixed persons?

                                          Reply#12 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:20 AM EDT
                                          Little Sure Shot

                                          Your point?

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #12.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:24 AM EDT
                                          upswing

                                          Nixon had 3 enemies

                                          At first I misread this: I though that it said that Richard Nixon had 3 enemas... :-P

                                          Ouch!

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #12.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:19 PM EDT
                                          Ben-1268009

                                          Your point?

                                          I think the point was that you have to go back more than 30 years to find a non-racist republican... at least that's what I got out of it. LOL

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #12.3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:36 PM EDT
                                          Reply
                                          A.G. Garcia

                                          When I lived in Mexico, as a US citizen, I had to carry ID documents as an immigrant to that country, and report any changes of address, or work. I had to update that document yearly. If we are required to show documentation in Mexico, isn't the sauce also good for the gander?

                                          What part of ILLEGAL don't we understand.

                                          • 6 votes
                                          Reply#13 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:42 AM EDT
                                          Brent-320354

                                          I guess Mexico hasn't been paralyzed by political correctness.... ;-)

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #13.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:47 AM EDT
                                          jmorris

                                          Yep, nothing I would like to see more than America emulate the Mexican Justice System

                                          /sarc

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #13.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:27 PM EDT
                                          PowerIsKnowledge

                                          When I lived in Mexico, as a US citizen, I had to carry ID documents as an immigrant to that country, and report any changes of address, or work. I had to update that document yearly. If we are required to show documentation in Mexico, isn't the sauce also good for the gander?

                                          Apples and Oranges because that's not the way our constitution reads.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #13.3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:55 PM EDT
                                          Reply
                                          Bubba-939441

                                          Janet couldn't care less about this guy. Arizona must act to protect it's citizens.

                                          http://www.redcounty.com/arizona-rancher-murdered-illegal-immigrant-who-flees-mexico/38211

                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#14 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:46 AM EDT
                                          gt350cobra

                                          http://ja-jp.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=37348479689&topic=7565

                                          Another horrible decision by the courts and the dangers of trying to stop illegal immigrants.

                                          He also was vandalized by illegal immigrants a number of times by illegal immigrants, and he finally had enough, I say good for the rancher.

                                            #14.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:58 AM EDT
                                            Ben-1268009

                                            Stop pretending like this is about any other crimes other than not having your papers on you. Those other crimes are crimes already and they get prosecuted already reguardless of immigration status or immigration laws... furthermore, far more American citizens commit such crimes than illegal immigrants do. All you're trying to do here is use a form of blood libel to justify your racism.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #14.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:41 PM EDT
                                            PowerIsKnowledge

                                            All you're trying to do here is use a form of blood libel to justify your racism.

                                            So true and if they weren't such cowards, they'd admit it instead of hiding the racism under other titles.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #14.3 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:01 AM EDT
                                            gt350cobra

                                            I am not going to protect the act of Illegal immigartion, maybe you should immigrate to Mexico ilegally and see what happens and then tell them they are being racist becasue you may be white or black or pink or whatever color.

                                            Accusing someone of being a racist is ridiculous, you are the ones who keep racism going because you see the world in black and white or whatever colors you want to use, I see the world as a people, and if they were white people crossing the border illegally I would say the exact same thing, but you can continue to sling your accusations instead of looking at the real problem of illegal immigration, which is not being more harsh and allowing Illegal immigration to continue.

                                              #14.4 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:47 PM EDT
                                              Reply
                                              TheSkeptic-1418965Deleted
                                              Mr.ChollyHudnallDeleted
                                              TBK

                                              The Confederacy is alive and well..this is just the beginning of their raise..other States will follow suit, because there is no real outrage. This is partly due to the decoys out there right now..you know, unemployment, wars, and a sour economy.

                                              AZ is taking a big step in the wrong direction and the Governor will regret this very bad decision, to coral people up like animals and herb them back across the boarder.

                                              I guess this is AZ just being AZ..remember they refused to honor MLK Day..of course this is no surprise, as John McCain is at the forefront of making profiling legal in his State. I guess it's his way of saying, as the chief of all birther's, he's against President Obama and will probably push for a bill to run him out of the White House, because he does not believe the President is an American citizen.

                                              States like this should have all federal funding cut off..their the root to everything that's wrong in this country.

                                              • 7 votes
                                              Reply#17 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:04 AM EDT
                                              TheSkeptic-1418965Deleted
                                              upswing

                                              The Skeptic:

                                              It's about securing our border, about ending illegal immigration and its attendant cost and crime.

                                              How would you feel about the police being allowed to shoot illegal immigrants on sight?

                                              That would likely help ease the illegal immigration problem, and it's not even politically correct.

                                              • 4 votes
                                              #17.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:27 AM EDT
                                              TheSkeptic-1418965Deleted
                                              TBK

                                              One would have to be a dummy-dum not to understand the mind set of the Confederacy lives on in AZ, just look at their Rep's Mcain & Franks..as witnessed by the Confederate AZ Rep Trent Franks in this video, who stated that slavery was the best thing to happen to blacks...video.aol.com/video-detail/.../2473280333.

                                              You can't make this stuff up..General McCain wants the Police of the Confederacy to round up anyone non-white and not carrying an ID card and deport their non-white azz back across the boarder. True statement..yes or no?? Yep, that's what I thought..the Confederacy lives on.

                                              This law is unconstitutional and bad for AZ, bad for the country, but more than that, bad for the human beings who will indeed suffer from this unjust, prejudicial, bias law of racial profiling!

                                              • 6 votes
                                              #17.4 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:08 AM EDT
                                              upswing

                                              The Skeptic:

                                              Tell you what upswing. . . that idea is about as ludicruous as the rest of your "thinking." But tell you what. . . if the police start shooting illegal immigrants, I'll donate a case or two of ammo. Does that make you happy.

                                              Geez, where do these loony types crawl out of. From under rocks or something?

                                              LOL!

                                              It's pretty funny how quickly you drain your admittedly very limited capacity for coherent discussion and resort to name-calling and personal attack.

                                              Do you honestly think that by simply repeating the same tired racist, invective-laced soundbites over and over and over and over and over... you are offering anyone the opportunity to engage you in a thoughtful exchange regarding the topic at hand?

                                              Actually -- strike that.

                                              I'm sure that you do.

                                              if the police start shooting illegal immigrants, I'll donate a case or two of ammo. Does that make you happy.

                                              No. It makes me sad.

                                              But it doesn't surprise me at all.

                                              • 7 votes
                                              #17.5 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:33 PM EDT
                                              Reply
                                              waukone

                                              Arrest those who hire them and the problem will go away. This is like targeting the prostitutes and not the Johns'.

                                              • 7 votes
                                              Reply#18 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:20 AM EDT
                                              upswing

                                              waukone:

                                              Arrest those who hire them and the problem will go away.

                                              Works for me.

                                              And it is something that can be done under existing law, and without having to violate our 4th Amendment rights.

                                              • 7 votes
                                              #18.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:29 AM EDT
                                              Tyler Durden-330839

                                              Just remember, 4 comes before 10.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #18.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:40 AM EDT
                                              upswing

                                              Tyler Durden:

                                              Just remember, 4 comes before 10.

                                              Bill of Rights?

                                              Sorry.

                                              A little too muddy a reference for me...

                                              • 2 votes
                                              #18.3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:06 AM EDT
                                              explorerdog

                                              Upswing, I presume you would intend to profile the employers. Would that be by the appearence of the workforce entering the establishment, or the appearence of the employer.What other criteria would you use, clandestine monitoring, electronic eavesdropping.

                                                #18.4 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:20 AM EDT
                                                Tyler Durden-330839

                                                Amendments.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #18.5 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:23 AM EDT
                                                explorerdog

                                                Upswing, I presume you would intend to profile the employers. Would that be by the appearence of the workforce entering the establishment, or the appearence of the employer.What other criteria would you use, clandestine monitoring, electronic eavesdropping.

                                                  #18.6 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:29 AM EDT
                                                  upswing

                                                  exploredog:

                                                  Upswing, I presume you would intend to profile the employers. Would that be by the appearence of the workforce entering the establishment, or the appearence of the employer.What other criteria would you use, clandestine monitoring, electronic eavesdropping.

                                                  None of the above.

                                                  I'd want to see that the employer made a reasonable effort to make sure that I-9s were kosher before he or she hired someone.

                                                  Not as glamorous or exotic as your options, admittedly. But effective, nevertheless.

                                                  • 5 votes
                                                  #18.7 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:09 AM EDT
                                                  upswing

                                                  Tyler Durden:

                                                  Amendments.

                                                  Okay. Thanks.

                                                  So you're saying that the Amendments to the Constitution are written in order of priority?

                                                  If so, I would challenge that claim.

                                                  • 2 votes
                                                  #18.8 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:15 AM EDT
                                                  Tyler Durden-330839

                                                  Weren't they?

                                                    #18.9 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:19 AM EDT
                                                    Tyler Durden-330839

                                                    I'm joking

                                                      #18.10 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:41 AM EDT
                                                      upswing

                                                      Tyler Durden:

                                                      I'm joking

                                                      Okay.

                                                        #18.11 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:56 AM EDT
                                                        jmorris

                                                        explorerdog

                                                        Upswing, I presume you would intend to profile the employers. Would that be by the appearence of the workforce entering the establishment, or the appearence of the employer.What other criteria would you use, clandestine monitoring, electronic eavesdropping.

                                                        None of the above. Let's just dramatically step up the number of I-9 Audits performed by ICE. Double the number of ICE workers checking the validity of the I-9 documentation every employer is required by law to file. Enact a "three strikes" rule for companies found in violation. Deport any workers found to be using false identification and charge employers for violations. Put some teeth in the current enforcement.

                                                        Yeah I know a bunch of clerks in green eye shades isn't as glamerous as putting the National Guard on the border and not as flashy as "Sheriff Joe" and his pink jumpsuits. But they will do more to reduce the illegal immigrant population than Arizona's new law will.

                                                        And they can do it using existing laws and without violating the Constitutional rights of any American Citizen. If they stepped up enforcement and prosecution the program could pay for itself.

                                                        What penalties does an employer face for I-9 violations?

                                                        Employers can face stiff penalties for IRCA violations that include substantial fines and debarment from government contracts. Penalties can be imposed for hiring unauthorized workers as well as simply for committing paperwork violations even if all workers are authorized to work. Fines for hiring unauthorized workers will amount to anywhere from $250 to $5,500 per worker depending on the prior history of violation. Employers can also be barred from competing for government contracts for a year if they knowingly hire or continue to employ unauthorized aliens. Paperwork violations can also result in significant fines. Each mistake or missing item on a form can result in a $100 penalty up to $1000 for each form. A missing form would automatically be assessed at $1000. An employer, for example, that had 100 employees and did not complete I-9 Forms might face a $100,000 fine. IRCA investigators have considerable discretion in assessing fines and will look at factors like the size of the company, the seriousness of the violations, whether the employer was trying to comply in good faith and the pattern of past violations.

                                                        Employers should also be cautioned that knowingly accepting fraudulent documents from employees is a different kind of violation that can be criminally prosecuted under other immigration laws.

                                                        After all Al Capone, one of the most notorious gangsters of all time, was busted for tax fraud not bank robbery or murder.

                                                        • 4 votes
                                                        #18.12 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:48 PM EDT
                                                        upswing

                                                        jmorris:

                                                        It all sounds good to me...

                                                        Glamor is overrated, anyway...

                                                        After all Al Capone, one of the most notorious gangsters of all time, was busted for tax fraud not bank robbery or murder.

                                                        Yeah. But that's only because the government doesn't like competition... :-)

                                                        • 3 votes
                                                        #18.13 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:41 PM EDT
                                                        Reply
                                                        JJ-317453

                                                        There are so many mixed race Americans running around nowadays, that I think a simple medium size tatoo on the forehead of minorities should help Arizona police decide who to profile and harass.

                                                        • 7 votes
                                                        Reply#19 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:35 AM EDT
                                                        Tyler Durden-330839

                                                        Name der Hure, die Sie birthed.
                                                        Name des Zuhälters, dass sie vergewaltigt.

                                                        • 5 votes
                                                        #19.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:51 AM EDT
                                                        Ben-1268009

                                                        OR... they could just be given stars of david to wear on their clothing... that was the next step that Germany took after enacting a very similar law against Jews in the 1930's...

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #19.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:10 PM EDT
                                                        Reply
                                                        ming-315743

                                                        If this is not hypocritical BS, I don't know what is. Many folks argue against BO because of increasing size of govt and its invasion in our lives, yet the same folks are all for giving a state gov increased power to stop any citizen that does not look as if they belong there. Talk about mind confusion. The BS about protecting the country is just that. The next terrorist threat this country will face will in all likelihood be from a home grown kook.

                                                        • 8 votes
                                                        Reply#20 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:02 AM EDT
                                                        Ben-1268009

                                                        Of course it's hyprocritical... it's all based on racism, not ideology. If you join the GOP today, they give you a complimentary white hood and confederate flag. They don't care about true conservatism as long as they can hate minority groups.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #20.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:13 PM EDT
                                                        ming-315743

                                                        How right you are. It is fine to be conservative but when you hide ignorance and hate behind conservatism, it is truly pathetic.

                                                        • 2 votes
                                                        #20.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:06 PM EDT
                                                        Reply
                                                        Mr.ChollyHudnallDeleted
                                                        mutter-356236

                                                        I would rather carry papers on my person or get a national id rather than pay anymore money for the thousands of illegal mexican immigrants in this county. Most have had years to become citizens and haven't. They have had years to learn the english language and haven't. I am for the law, pack them up and send them all back to every country they are from. Lock the boarders. If I want to go to Mexico I have to have a passport, return the favor. Its time our country knows who is coming in and out of our county.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        Reply#22 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:09 AM EDT
                                                        upswing

                                                        mutter:

                                                        I would rather carry papers on my person or get a national id rather than pay anymore money for the thousands of illegal mexican immigrants in this county

                                                        I've never "met" anyone who was able to put a monetary value on their liberty before ... Interesting.

                                                        • 7 votes
                                                        #22.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:18 AM EDT
                                                        Turducken

                                                        I would rather carry papers on my person..

                                                        So if you change pants and forget to transfer your papers from one pair to the other, you could be jailed and/or interrogated. You're really OK with this?

                                                        They have had years to learn the english language and haven't.

                                                        Why does that bother you? If you're interested in talking to them, it's up to you to learn Spanish.

                                                        • 5 votes
                                                        #22.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:39 PM EDT
                                                        Reply
                                                        Skallywag-572756Deleted
                                                        Nick46

                                                        I'd bet that within the next 6 months, Arizona will become the most predominately white state in the union.

                                                        No it won't. People will not leave because of this. But now the police and white people will live in fear. The uprising will begin. Rebellion, revolution.

                                                        • 4 votes
                                                        Reply#24 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:35 AM EDT
                                                        jmorris

                                                        Really, I would not want to be a white person eating any food "prepared" in most restaurants in Arizona once this law goes into full swing.

                                                        • 3 votes
                                                        #24.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:53 PM EDT
                                                        PivotalAxis

                                                        nick ... please do show us your true colors... so we can assess this problem correctly...

                                                          #24.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:39 PM EDT
                                                          PivotalAxis

                                                          VIDEO CLIP THREATENING ARMED REBELLION
                                                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDlutO0KK7g

                                                          "We will not stop! We will take up our shovels and pickaxes and we...we will use them against you! Believe that!" screams an opponent of Arizona's tough new bill addressing illegal immigration.

                                                          http://www.alipac.us/

                                                            #24.3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:50 PM EDT
                                                            Reply
                                                            Ron Swaren

                                                            If you are white and from some country like France, England or Germany you would have to have your passport stamped by a US customs officer to enter the US. How can Latin Americans get in here w/o the passport stamp?

                                                            I want to know. This seems to be discrimination.

                                                              Reply#25 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:50 AM EDT
                                                              upswing

                                                              Ron Swaren:

                                                              If you are white and from some country like France, England or Germany you would have to have your passport stamped by a US customs officer to enter the US. How can Latin Americans get in here w/o the passport stamp?

                                                              I want to know. This seems to be discrimination.

                                                              Blame NAFTA and other free trade agreements designed to create a North American Union, which makes Canada, the US and MAxico one entity.

                                                              • 2 votes
                                                              #25.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:23 AM EDT
                                                              Nick46

                                                              Blame NAFTA and other free trade agreements designed to create a North American Union, which makes Canada, the US and MAxico one entity.

                                                              Well there you are, get rid of NAFTA and away go all these problems. So simple.

                                                              • 1 vote
                                                              #25.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:45 AM EDT
                                                              Skallywag-572756Deleted
                                                              upswing

                                                              Nick:

                                                              Well there you are, get rid of NAFTA and away go all these problems. So simple.

                                                              LOL!

                                                              This response is so illogical that it's actually very funny. :-)

                                                              I acknowledge your sarcasm.

                                                              But, just because something causes a problem, banning that thing after the problem has been caused doesn't solve the problem.

                                                              e.g. The banning bullets after one has blown your head off won't bring you back to life...

                                                              Right?

                                                              The post I was respnding to cited the relative passport requirements across Mexico and Europe.

                                                              My response was directly relevant to the cause of that discrepancy (e.g. the "bullet"), which is the plethora of free trade agreements, such as NAFTA, CAFTA ... and the ongoing push to create the North Ameican Union.

                                                              The solution to fixing the mess these free trade agreement have already caused obviously (to some people, anyway) isn't the contemporary banning of those free trade agreements, now, is it?

                                                              LOL!

                                                              • 3 votes
                                                              #25.4 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 PM EDT
                                                              jmorris

                                                              Ron Swaren

                                                              If you are white and from some country like France, England or Germany you would have to have your passport stamped by a US customs officer to enter the US. How can Latin Americans get in here w/o the passport stamp?

                                                              I want to know. This seems to be discrimination.

                                                              Well a lot of them just walk across the border, no US Customs, no passport. Just like those sneaky Canadians can if they want to.

                                                              Of course a large proportion of Hispanics in America take the harder route of just being born here, some even being in this country for generations. And of course the whole group of Mexicans that became US Citizens when we captured/took over/purchased the vast swaths of the Southwest from Mexico. They don't have passport stamps either.

                                                              • 4 votes
                                                              #25.5 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:59 PM EDT
                                                              Reply
                                                              Nick46

                                                              I know!! We can tatoo identification numbers on all legal people. Maybe on the forearm where it will be readily visible whan asked.

                                                              • 1 vote
                                                              Reply#26 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:02 AM EDT
                                                              buddym

                                                              Everyone in the US has to have a drivers license, or an ID card of some kind. For that matter you have to have ID in every country in the world such as a passport, etc. You cannot buy cigarettes or booze without ID, you cannot vote without ID. You cannot rent a car or get a loan on a car without ID, you cannot enter a hospital without ID, you cannot cash a check or deposit a check into your bank aco@!$%# without ID, what the hell would you be doing going around the country without any ID on you whatsoever. The first thing that cops do when they pull you over is ask for your drivers license and your insurance card. If you do not have a drivers license or your license is suspended you are taken to jail and your vehicle is towed. What gives anyone the right to run around this country without the proper identification? This crap will not float with me. You have to have ID in every country in this world. If you have absolutely no ID on you then you are most likely an illegal. Too bad, pay the price and be deported. I am tired of paying taxes for schools and healthcare for the illegals. That is what is breaking the states of California, Nevada and Arizona. I commend Arizona for what they are trying to do. Most of the people who are against Arizona do not even live there and if they did they might feel differently.

                                                              • 1 vote
                                                              #27 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:13 AM EDT
                                                              LizLiz

                                                              Everyone in the US has to have a drivers license, or an ID card of some kind

                                                              No we don't.

                                                              you cannot vote without ID

                                                              Yes, you can.

                                                              you cannot enter a hospital without ID

                                                              No ID is required at the hospital I work for.

                                                              deposit a check into your bank aco@!$%# without ID

                                                              Wrong again. You may not be able to cash a check, but you can deposit one without an ID.

                                                              what the hell would you be doing going around the country without any ID on you whatsoever.

                                                              Let me see... I like to jog, ride my bike, go for walks, swim, go to the park, and pick up my daughter, all without carrying my ID. Imagine that.

                                                              The first thing that cops do when they pull you over is ask for your drivers license and your insurance card

                                                              The first question I always get, "Ma'am, do you know how fast you were going? ;)

                                                              • 6 votes
                                                              #27.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:22 AM EDT
                                                              explorerdog

                                                              Although you, by your own admission, often break motor vehicle laws, do you think the taxpayer ought to pay to identify your corpse if you should you cross the path of one of a multitude of unsavory criminal types?

                                                                #27.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:38 AM EDT
                                                                Chip from TX

                                                                An out of state driver's license from some states (Texas for example) isn't sufficient to prove legal residence. With this new law any person who looks Hispanic from one of those states, US citizen or not, has to now carry an extra piece of identification apart from their driver's license to prove they're here legally or risk being detained until legal status can be verified.

                                                                • 3 votes
                                                                #27.3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:39 AM EDT
                                                                explorerdog

                                                                Although you, by your own admission, often break motor vehicle laws, do you think the taxpayer ought to pay to identify your corpse if you should you cross the path of one of a multitude of unsavory criminal types?

                                                                  #27.4 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:41 AM EDT
                                                                  nica1829

                                                                  because heaven knows its only illegal immigrants that are murdering people or are you saying you are perfectly willing to pay to identify her body with no complaints if she is murdered by an American citizen

                                                                  • 3 votes
                                                                  #27.5 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:48 AM EDT
                                                                  LizLiz

                                                                  Although you, by your own admission, often break motor vehicle laws, do you think the taxpayer ought to pay to identify your corpse if you should you cross the path of one of a multitude of unsavory criminal types?

                                                                  I am a tax payer. I paid for those services as well. So sure, get my monies worth in death as well as life.

                                                                  You sure love posting twice and wishing doom and gloom on others. This is the second(third if you count the duplicates) post of you imagining me meeting a violent end to my life. You must not get out much, seeing how scary a jog in your neighborhood must be.

                                                                  • 6 votes
                                                                  #27.6 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:56 AM EDT
                                                                  aji

                                                                  I can't say I know too many adults that don't carry some form of id. You may want to rethink a couple of your answers. You DO need an Id to vote, if they aren't checking it they're doing something wrong. You DO need an id to open a bank account in the first place. If you pick up your child from school you DO need to have an id (at least in my city). Tell you what, in support of all the people you are legal that may be carded I will carry around my id whenever I leave my home, oh wait I already do. One last thing...since you seem to feel it's hard to carry an I'd if you are out jogging, walking or running i figured I would let you know how to solve your problem, tuck your id in your sock.

                                                                    #27.7 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:09 PM EDT
                                                                    mash-1424214

                                                                    LizLiz your 27.1 post is about 50% correct, ID is at the discretion of the business or services and most businesses arerequiring ID. As a paramedic, we always asked for ID from the patients, why because the illegals lied to you, they had no ID, so they would lie. I was just ID the other day at Wells Fargo when making a deposit and paying off a small loan. They advised that was their new policy, ID for making a deposit? ID for paying off a loan with Wells Fargo own check, all they had to do was call up the account number.

                                                                    So LIZ LIZ know your BIZ BIZ before you pose yourself as an expert.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #27.8 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:11 PM EDT
                                                                    AdipicAcid

                                                                    You DO need an Id to vote, if they aren't checking it they're doing something wrong.

                                                                    All I have ever been asked for is my voter registration card, and I've voted in every election since 1984. The voter card has no photo and I am not asked to provide any other form of identification.

                                                                    My home state, Maryland, also does not require proof of citizenship for a driver's license. Thus even a state-issued photo ID does not provide the assurance you wish. You'd have to carry your passport, which does guarantee citizenship, to have proof positive, and that reeks of totalitarian government. So much for the "freedom" that you claim to worship.

                                                                    • 8 votes
                                                                    #27.9 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:19 PM EDT
                                                                    LizLiz

                                                                    aji

                                                                    You DO need an Id to vote, if they aren't checking it they're doing something wrong.

                                                                    Nope. Just my voter registration card.

                                                                    If you pick up your child from school you DO need to have an id (at least in my city).

                                                                    Well, not in my city.

                                                                    Tell you what, in support of all the people you are legal that may be carded I will carry around my id whenever I leave my home, oh wait I already do.

                                                                    Good for you!

                                                                    One last thing...since you seem to feel it's hard to carry an I'd if you are out jogging, walking or running i figured I would let you know how to solve your problem, tuck your id in your sock.

                                                                    Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks. You must not be a jogger to suggest such a thing.

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #27.10 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:34 PM EDT
                                                                    LizLiz

                                                                    mash

                                                                    As a paramedic, we always asked for ID from the patients, why because the illegals lied to you, they had no ID, so they would lie.

                                                                    I sure hope your not an EMT in my state. I shudder to think that someone who required your medical attention needed to show ID before you would help them, illegal or not. Whats the script? "Sir, I know your having a heart attach and I would love to assist, but I'm gonna need to see your ID first."

                                                                    I was just ID the other day at Wells Fargo when making a deposit and paying off a small loan.

                                                                    I don't bank at Wells Fargo. I did just cash a few checks at my bank for my daughter who received about seven checks for her birthday. No ID was required.

                                                                    So LIZ LIZ know your BIZ BIZ before you pose yourself as an expert.

                                                                    Did I claim to be an expert? BTW- when you add a snarky comment it takes away from the post. Try not to get so defensive, keep a level head, and discuss and debate.

                                                                    • 4 votes
                                                                    #27.11 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:44 PM EDT
                                                                    believer-369603

                                                                    You DO need an Id to vote, if they aren't checking it they're doing something wrong.

                                                                    Nope. Just my voter registration card.

                                                                    What did you have to do to get the voter registration card?

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #27.12 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:21 PM EDT
                                                                    AdipicAcid

                                                                    I got mine through the mail, as I recall. It was a long time ago. I do know that I was never once required to produce a photo ID to get it, not that it would matter, since once again no photo ID is required if you are carrying the card.

                                                                    Care to address my second point about 90% of the photo ids in this country not being proof of citizenship anyway? Do you carry a Passport at all times to verify the fact that you are not, in fact, an illegal immigrant?

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #27.13 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 PM EDT
                                                                    believer-369603

                                                                    Care to address my second point about 90% of the photo ids in this country not being proof of citizenship anyway?

                                                                    I agree.

                                                                    Do you carry a Passport at all times to verify the fact that you are not, in fact, an illegal immigrant?

                                                                    No. The only thing I carry is a drivers license.

                                                                    I asked about the voter card because when I first registered to vote in Federal elections I had to prove I was a legal citizen. So having a voter registration card meant, by default, that you had already proven your citizenship. State and local voter registration only required proof of residency in whatever county or state I was registering in.

                                                                    Granted, this was many many years ago. I don't know if proof of legal citizenship is still required in order to register to vote.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #27.14 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:32 PM EDT
                                                                    AdipicAcid

                                                                    I never needed to produce a birth cert or passport. And remember that was in 1984.

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #27.15 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:01 PM EDT
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    Nick46

                                                                    what the hell would you be doing going around the country without any ID on you whatsoever.

                                                                    I rarely carry ID. And I am rarely asked for it. There are times I am incovenienced by not having it but I can live with that it's my choice. My drivers license and insurance are usually in my car but even if they are not I get a ticket but it's dismissed once I prove that I have them. Inconvenience but my choice.

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    Reply#28 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:35 AM EDT
                                                                    Paddy Clarke

                                                                    So, whites don't carry papers ? License, ID ?

                                                                    What kind of sorry-a$$ argument is this ?

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    Reply#29 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:00 PM EDT
                                                                    Paddy Clarke

                                                                    When have the handcuffs ever been ON POLICE?

                                                                    When they commit crimes.

                                                                    I just want to know. From where I've lived all my life, Police could pretty much do whatever the hell they wanted to.

                                                                    When they do that, they are punished. Citizens have also done whatever they wanted. As long as it is legal, that's fine.

                                                                    So, there are places in America where they've been ' handcuffed'? I call bull on this.

                                                                    Those sentences go together.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    Reply#30 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:02 PM EDT
                                                                    AdipicAcid

                                                                    When they commit crimes.

                                                                    What planet do you come from, and what color is the sky there? They don't call it the Code of Silence for nothing, you know.

                                                                    • 5 votes
                                                                    #30.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:21 PM EDT
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4
                                                                    Leave a Comment:
                                                                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                    FUN STUFF:
                                                                    • Leaderboard |
                                                                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                    • Top of the Vine |
                                                                    • Newsvine Live |
                                                                    • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                    • The Greenhouse |
                                                                    COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                    • Code of Honor |
                                                                    • Company Info |
                                                                    • Contact Us |
                                                                    • Jobs |
                                                                    • User Agreement |
                                                                    • Privacy Policy |
                                                                    • About our ads
                                                                    LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com