The fact is AZ law is violating the Constitution and has no shot at surviving, the Federal Government will easily win in court.

ES,

Tell us . Oh Wise One, how does Arizona law violate the Constitution?

The AZ law is totally consistent with the US Constitution and does not permit any discrimination. Opponents are merely granstanding for campaign purposes or are bigots that hate the gringo.

It does not violate the US Constitution. It is virtually the same law that the federal government has only this law expressly forbids racial profiling. The federal government has failed to secure the borders, plain and simple. If this were really about federal law trumping state law, then the DOJ would be going after states that are open violation of federal law. Think of Maryland with their complete violation of Real ID and sanctuary cities who have openly stated that they will not assist in reporting illegal aliens. This whole lawsuit is political and is an attempt to secure hispanic votes for the Obama administration.

Hey Kirk... you might want to read the opinion... that's not what the Supreme Court said... they simply said you had the right to bear arms... and that reasonable laws could be put in place regarding that right.... we will now spend the next 30 years deciding in courts deciding what are those reasonable rights (as we have seen in abortion ruling).... Suggest you go to the Supeme Court site, download the opinion and read it.....

I was taught in school that only US Citizens are protected by the US Constitution.

WHY WON'T Obama sue sanctuary cities that are in direct conflict with federal law?

I'll tell ya why, because it doesn't fit his agenda of capturing the Latino vote. Talk about favoring one segment of society over another, pitting one group against another creating racial tension. This isn't "change" I can believe in.

Kevin - the laws Chicago is throwing up in response the SCOTUS decision sound far from reasonable to me. Requiring training on a shooting range, and then disallowing shooting ranges in the city of Chicago (you can build in door ranges) sounds like a pretty dick move to me...

No state can usurp Federal authority

How is Arizona usurping Federal authority?

I find it amusing that so many people right now are quoting the constitution to uphold their political viewpoints by cherry picking and quoting the passages or amendments they like while ignoring the rest. The constitution has to be taken in its entirety along with legal precedents and rulings over the years. But even just looking at the 1787 version alone with the first 10 amendments, Arizona is in violation if it is followed as the founders intended and put it to paper.

I find it amusing when Democrats do it too, whats your point?

"Bolton said the law has a section allowing parts to still take effect even if other parts are struck down."

At least the Arizona legislature is a heck of a lot smarter than the Democrats in the US Congress. Those idiots left out this "section" in Obamacare.

Everyone that says this law is racist/usurps Federal Authority, please take 10 minutes to actually READ the law, then you quote to me the parts that state the police officers need to look for a specific race of people, or where exactly Arizona created it's own Immigration Policy:

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

No excuses, I gave you a direct link. I want to see the quotes you find racist.

It all lies with how the judge interprets the law so both sides can argue till they are blue in the face.I wouldn't be surprised if her mind was made up going in. I just hope she likes AZ!

Mike

Perhaps you should read Article VI yourself. It says...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The constitution and federal laws are the supreme law, and if the state was writing a law in opposition to those, it would fail. The problem is the AZ law is not in opposition to the federal law, it enforces it. So it is not in violation of this paragraph.

Wizard: I'm with you. Fingers crossed.

I just wonder if the judge rules in favor of the Feds what will happen next: revolution, anarchy? I know one thing for sure; I wouldn't want to be Obama.

I hope Arizona will get to keep this law.

I see nothing wrong with asking for identification when stopped by the police.

I have to hand it over when ever I'm stopped while driving. Illegal immigrants ,,I'm considered an "illegal immigrant" if I'm in another country with out the proper documentation ( ie. visa /passport etc.) and I have to show these when ever stopped by authorities of that country.

"illleagal is illegal " ,,,,period !

Mike, Arizona is not usurping Federal Authority according to the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause states...

"the Laws of the United States...shal be the supreme Law of the Land... any Thing in the Consitution or Laws of any State to the Contrry notwithstanding." Congressional intent is paramount in preemption analysis; acccordingly, a court must determine whether Congress expressly or implicitly intended ot preempt state or local action. General a court will determine that Congress intended to preempt a state regulation or enforcement when (1) Congress expresses preemtive intent in "explicity statutory language," (2) when a state entitny regulates "in a field that Congress intended the Federal Government to occupy exclusively," or (3) when a state entity's activity "acutally conflicts with federal law."

One of those three conditions listed above must be shown for the AZ law to be in violation of the Supremacy Clause. I'll address the first two conditions together.

1) Congress expresses preemtive intent in "explicity statutory language," and (2) when a state entitny regulates "in a field that Congress intended the Federal Government to occupy exclusively," - This would mean that Congress would have to specify that a state cannot enforce federal laws, in this case immigration policy. However, Congress and the Federal Government already allow for states to aid in the enforcement of immigration law and there is no explicit statutory language the prohibits state law enforcement from enforcing federal laws. On the contrary, states are obliged to uphold federal law.

"The power to prescrib rules as to which aliens may enter th U.S. and which aliens may be rmoved soley resides with the federal government, particularly with the Congress. To implement its plenary power, Congress has enacted and amended the INA - a comprehensive set of rules for legal immigration, naturalization, deportation, and enfrocement. Conccmitatn to its exclusev power to determine which aliens may enter and which may stay, the federal governmant alos has power to prosribe activites that subert thes rules (e.g. alien smuggling) and to set criminal or civil penalties for those who undertake these activities.http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P48.pdf

In examining the INA, it is crucial to distinguish the civil from criminal violations. For example, mre illegal presence in the U.S. is civil, no criminal violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil prceedsing. Criminal violations of the INA include e.g,, 8 U.S.C 1324, which addresses the bringing in ond harboring of certain undcumented aliens; 1325(a), which addresses the illegal entry of aliens; and 1326, which penalizes the reentry of aliens previoulsy excluded or deorted.http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P48.pdf

Congress also has exlusive authority to prescribe procedures for determining who may enter or stay and the right of aliens in the proceedings... However, exclusive authority to presribe the rules on immigration does not necessarily imply exclusive authrity to enforce those rules. While enforcement standards and procedure may differ between the criminal and civl aspects of immigration law, Congress may authorzie the states to assit in enforcing both, and state officers may exceise thi authority to the degree permitted under federal and state law. There is a notion, however, on ebeing more frequently articulated by the fedral courts and the Executive brance, that states have "inherent" authority to enforce at least the federal criminal law related to immigration. http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P48.pdf

In general, the INA allows states to enforce the criminal provisions rather than civil. This means the state cannot arrest someone for being in the US illegally. However, they can arrest someone on the charge of illegally crossing the border.

Lastly, the third condition when a state entity's activity acutally conflicts with federal law does not apply here because the new AZ law only mirrors current federal immigration policy in that it makes it a state crime to violate a federal crime of being in country illegally.

Good luck, AZ....... There are a LOT of folks in the U.S. hoping you win.

For what ever reason

If an Amercan citizen was ask by the police (just because they can) to see your papers, how many of you will have your papers on you?

Then because you don't, you get detained because you do not have your papers, would you be upset that you got locked up for not having your papers?

Now lets say, the cop is a total prick (as most are) just because he and you have a disagreement over a parking ticket or a speeding ticket the police officer detaines you for not having your papers, even though you are a national citizen, tell me how you will feel then?

This has nothing to do with illegals and everything to do with us loosing our civil rights. this will expand beyond illigals in this country to Nazi type conservative control.

Welcome to the NWO people

Where's the line - Um, yes we do, it's called a drivers license. Thanks for trying though.

Dont try to educate mike or his yoke, they would not understand the Constitution even if they bothered reading it. Mike and his yoke have a Reading Comprehension problem and thats why they will never bother reading something for themselves.

If you get busted driving without a license, you're in deep crap either way. Wah. Don't be an idiot.

Mike, not only are you incorrect regarding the AZ law being in opposition to Federal law, as so succinctly quoted by the kind folks above, but just imagine if it is decided by Federal court that you are correct anyway. How many current state and local laws overlap, echo, or reiterate Federal law already? Thousands? They would all now be subject to challenge in court based on your precedent.

Might be fun, actually.

I would GLADLY carry my drivers license, birth certificate, social security card and anything else to prove I am a legal citizen if it means that it would help to get the illegal people out of this country!

This action by the obama administration is about NOTHING more than PROTECTING the undocumented democrats so they will have the votes in november to keep their seats in the house and senate. They will do what ever they can to protect their power and damn you if you think differently than they do. None of this would be needed if the federal goverment would have decades ago just ENFORCED the imigration laws that ARE ALL READY ON THE BOOKS. As we have witnessed this administration ether can't read or it just doesn't want too. When the heat started coming obama is going to send a few troops to the region I say that's a little like putting lipstick on the pig a little to little a little to late.GO ARIZONA WE ARE WITH YOU ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know, it's funny, I have yet to hear any AZ Law detractors quote the law I linked above... hmmm, maybe that's because there is, in fact, nothing wrong with it?

Where's the line - If you will kindly take 10 minutes and go to the link above and read the AZ law, you will see it requires that you first be doing something that would cause an officer to question you: meaning you're not going to be randomly asked to show ID walking down the street.

Thank you, well said and to the point.

Do you carry any form of IDs? Driver's license? Just because you worry about a minor issue that you are willing to make this country an illegal's haven? You are pathetic and selfish. If you are legal and has nothing to hide, no law will scare you. Civil right? all rights come with responsibilities. Your stupid reasons and mentalities are the reasons this country is going down.

Seems to me this is one of the original grievances against King George III in the Declaration of Independence.

"He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them."

Something to think about!

Wish I could get away with illegal things.

Wish I could get food stamps, free insurance, free housing money, utility money, etc.

But, I'm not an illegal, so............damn.

I carry no drivers license, I take the bus

I'm sure your carry a state id of some sort. Otherwise, how do you write a check, run a credit card, buy an alcholic beverage, etc. All these things, plus a lot more require you to have a state issued ID. Shoot, I'm 30 years old, don't look anything close to being under the age of 18. The other day I forgot my license when I ran up to wal-mart and couldn't buy a pack of smokes. The lady told me she knew I was over but missouri law requires wal-mart to card me. That's the law. I had to show my ID and my debit card didn't work. Also doesn't work at the bank I work at when a customer needs to withdraw money from their account, they must show a valid state id or driver's license. Nothing less.

This Administration wants to take away the state laws and enforce only their communist agenda. The more we allow this communist administration to get away with the less freedom we are going to have. Common sense. More Government Control = Less Freedom. I guess too many lazy people in this country don't really care because they think the government hand outs will be their life style. I am not wealthy by any means, but I don't think it's fair to take money from wealthy people who have earned or inherited it. Someone earned it! That's their money!! Lucky them, but I am not entitled to it. Why do so many people in this country loath the wealthy. Without the wealth of businesses we would not have jobs. The more the Government takes from the businesses the less they have for the payroll. Duhhhh is that too hard to figure out. WAKE UP or we can say good bye to the USA!

Yes indeed; if you're here illegally, you're breaking the law. We as US citizens have to uphold the law, however if one is here illegally, they're protected from the law. Man, did I miss something somewhere? I don't recognize America anymore.

No state can usurp Federal authority.

A. I don't know how enforcing a federal law classifies as usurping Federal authority.

B. Would you please tell this to the states that have legalized "medical" marijuana? How is that not usurping Federal authority? Yet, Obama has told the Feds to stop raiding "medical" marijuana dispensaries even though they are clearly in conflict in federal law. Also, California is voting in November whether they will legalize marijuana for recreational use. Where are the law suits stopping this measure from being included on California's November ballot?

1.33 - "I don't think anyone in their own country should have to carry any identification whatsoever unless they are doing something that requires a license like driving a vehicle."

I agree, and the new Arizona law does change your right to walk around without any ID. If, however, a cop has reason to believe you broke the law or are about to, he has the right to stop you and confirm your identity. That is true in every state. If you have no ID, then you just might get a ride downtown in the back seat of a cop car until a family member or someone can bring your ID to the police station.

Bottom line: We all have the right to not carry ID, and when suspected of a crime, the cops have both the right and the obligation to determine our identity before they turn us loose.

Agreed whole heartily!. Our American Government is all talk and no substance. We are not respected around the world because they know we will talk,talk, talk and not do the walk. Get rid of all our elected and life appointed officials. They are worthless on upholding the constitution and the laws they pass.

STLMike

You are correct, I do have a licence but don't carry it because I don't need it. And yes I do use it for bank, alchole and all the other reason you mentioned. I guess I will carry more often now because I really never thought about it before, I live in America the land of the freeish...

The ignorance does not amaze me, NO wonder these people can't compete against someone that can hardly speak english for a job, so they point fingers, guess that's the only thing people like this can do, get educated instead of playing the blame game ............. and wasting everyones time !

In Missouri you have to have a birth certificate to get your drivers license renewed. This has to be a state issued and certified.

I agree, and the new Arizona law does change your right to walk around without any ID.

azdad48, is that what you meant to say?

Let's see Arizona has crafted a law basically paralelling fedral law and some how that is "usurping" . Would Arizona have passed this law if the feds had been upholding current federal laws? Too many of the s*it stirrers are intentionally mischaracterizing the provisions in this law for political gain.

The Obama justice department has their priorities all out of order. Sue Arizona but let the New Black Panther Party members who were harrassing voters in Philly off the hook, maybe Obama wants the illegal aliens to stand with weapons at polling booths in November as their best chance not to lose Congress!

Kirk Patrick,

"Let me get this straight: Arizona only wants to enforce an ignored Federal Law to protect our borders, but the Feds say no state can oppose the Feds, but when the Supreme Court (i.e. the Feds) said Chicago gun bans were illegal, Illinois was allowed to quickly pass new laws restricting guns?

Meanwhile, claiming we can't defend our own borders from a real drug war, the Feds sent 7000 Marines to Costa Rica to fight the war on drugs there instead?

The Hypocrisy of the Democrats is staggering. They have absolutely no rhyme or reason behind their thinking - it is just "follow the leader" and "vote on party lines"."

Yes, your statement could not be more clear. This is the truth, but it does not get out because of the Left-wing Government-controlled Obama media machine that HATES America and it's citizens and loves the illegals who, face it, would be deported if this law were enforced. All the illegal aliens need to do is play the race card (i.e. SB 1070). All the NAACP has to do is play the race card, (i.e. TEA partiers) to make, or try to make us shut up.

But we are not going to shut up. I got a message for the Left: "We are on to you, and your illegal immigrant supporters, and the Left-wing media, and Obama, and the libs. We, "EVERYONE ELSE" in America will not stand for your attempts to socially engineer this country into a Third World Cesspool.

It is just mind-boggling for so many democrats and left-wingers that are not intelligent enough to see that Arizona is trying to protect their sorry butts with border security.

STLMike, (1.18) great explanation you provided.

Course even when AZ wins this, we still need the border secured. Wake up Congress and do your job. Get the border taken care of, do not allow amnesty, and stop the anchor baby clause.

Here's the real hipocracy: There is a program under ICE whereby local law
enforcement may send officers to recieve training to act as deputies of ICE
to enforce existing Federal immigration law. Under the Federal immigration law, NO PRIOR REASON is required to stop a suspected illegal immigrant, only the SUSPICION that they may be an illegal immigrant. Under Federal law, it is a misdemenor for a person to enter the country illegally. So every person here illegally has broken the law right off as they enter.
Persons who have entered legally are required, under Federal law to carry documents. They are provided with legal documents to carry by the Federal Government. So really, the only problem here is that Arizona did not act to take advantage of the existing ICE Training Program. Of course that is assuming the ICE Training Program, required by Federal Law is even being
offered. If not, what else could Arizona do but enact law to have it's
law enforcement agencies act to curb the INVASION and accompanying increase in Domestic Violence it's citizens are experiencing. And by the way, the U. S. Contitution REQUIRES the Federal Gov't to act to STOP INVASIONS, and allows States to act to STOP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE when the Federal Gov't does not act or cannot act. Any ruling against the Arizona law would therefore ignore what is in our own Constitution. The ruling that should come from the Court is that the Federal Gov't has FAILED to defend it's citizens, it's states from INVASION and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, and that our appointed and elected officials who swore an oath to protect and defend the United States of America, and the Constitution of the United States are have breached that oath, and should be removed from office and or impeached and removed from office.

I live in Washington State and I cross the Canadian border frequently. I have a passport because it is required. I consider this an important and reasonable deterrent to illegal entry. No one can cross from Canada to the US without a passport or an enhanced Washington drivers license.

Recently, a friend was visisting from another state and he was denied access into Canada because he had a DUI when he was 18. He is now 50. No one seemed to consider this an unreasonable or discriminatory action.

The border is secured by cameras and is nearly impossible to cross undetected. Why should the Mexican border be treated any different?

I guess I dont need to say anything about Mike's post.

I love it when a liberal states that this law would make the poor hispanic citizens of Arizona carry an ID card. Then the uneducated people start comparing it with nazi Germany and the like.

Last time I checked we all carry drivers licenses. This is something else that has been pointed out by the posters above.

It literally saddens me when I see some white 20 year old female protester getting out for the rights of people that are illegally infiltrating our country. I was a kid when the Vietnam protesters dishonored our fighting men and women with their misguided protests. I must imagine that this is the same thing.

WTG Arizona! I hope your law makes it. Personally I believe Obama will abuse his powers and force Arizona to drop its case.

He will do this because he cant get voted in a second term without the support of illegal immigrants.

The African American block wont vote for him now.

I love how Kirk I believe has given everyone a link to the law, but no one is quoting things that are supposedly unconstitutional - they're just saying "it is" but not why.

And, I STILL want to know why people say that this is unconstitutional to begin with given these people are illegal, do NOT have papers and are committing a crime in our country. You need to read up on Mexican law regarding immigration and what they do to illegals. If you did, you'd be changing your tune quickly - there's no way they'd kowtow to US changing.

I had several roommates from foreign countries who came here to learn. They got their student visas and were proud to show them and learn about America. I do not see this with a lot of the illegal immigrants (who really haven't immigrated - they haven't been sworn in - but became leeches to our services).

We are in a lot of deep dirt if we think that illegals should have OUR rights when they don't care to do it the proper way. They harm those who do want to come here legally by making their wait time longer, they harm us economically, but supposedly WE'RE wrong for saying we want to follow the federal law that our presidents (Obama and Bush for sure) didn't want to uphold.

Where's the brain

bonehead...do you drive?...you are supposed to have your drivers "papers" when you drive...or do you still have your mom drive you around?...just wondering as it may lend something to your otherwise lacking credibilty...thanks

what comes around goes around

Wear the Yoke

Read my posts, you may catch up and answer your own question.

but your immature insults show me your level

Kirk Patrick...the Supreme Court can only rule on the constitutionality of the AZ law. And FYI...Democrats have nothing to do with the Supreme Court's decision.

You are so right Anthony! It's so many young white people who are trying to help the illegals because they just don't know any better. They haven't yet grown up and they think that everybody in the world is just going to "get along." It's not going to happen and it will never happen. They need many years on their backs to realize that the illegal population is treading on them hard, and long, and will always try to get sympathy from the young because they are still innocent and haven't seen things that my age or older have seen that are bringing this country down, right down the toilet bowl. You can't change their minds, unfortunately. They are just the misguided young people that won't learn until they get older. GO ARIZONA!!!

Al Sanchez

Americans support LEGAL IMMIGRATION; Americans are against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

The rule of law must be enforced NOW. A government which refuses to enforce its own laws WILL NOT BE TOLERATED (and I speak as a Democrat and civil libertarian).

Americans will not tolerate a system by which immigrating illegally is rewarded. Illegal immigration is neither fair, nor just, nor moral. Enforcement of American immigration laws promotes fairness and equality. Refusing to enforce the law promotes anarchy, permits companies to take advantage of people, and drives down wages for American citizens and LEGAL immigrants alike. Hopefully Judge Bolton will uphold the rule of law.

The law, federal or state, should target whichever people have broken the law, irrespective of which ones or how many of them have broken it, irrespective of their racial, ethnic, national origin, or other background, plain and simple. I think we can all agree on that.

No one individual or group of people get to violate American law with impunity. Indeed, the law must be applied equally and should target the lawbreakers whoever they may be. Correct?!!!

The motto of the Democrats - the secret decoder handshake motto - is "Take from the thrifty and give to the shifty." They also never saw a tax they didn't like.

Socialists and bringing socialism to your neighborhood and our country is what the Democrats are and always have been about. Capitalism is dirty word; individual initiative - well, some have of course, but most don't and so it is encumbent upon government and the Democrats to protect (the votes) of those who are not strong; those who are too lazy to learn to speak English (and consequently find it more difficult to apply for welfare because of it.) It is important also for us not to really care about enforceing the immigration laws on the book, because that would be hard to do and mean.

The reason the Democrats and President Obama have no rhyme nor reason to their actions is because they really have no clue about what America is about and why it truly is the best nation in the entire world. They are too busy apologizing for the fact we are and deserve to be the most powerful nation on earth. It is not and was not an accident.

How could they care about something like that, when they devoutly, devotedly are doing everything possible to make us like our dear friends in Europe - you know we are in trouble if the French act like they are happy with us!

Actually though, perhaps we shouldn't discourage them from doing what they are doing, because without them realizing it, they are sinking their own boat. The economy is only going to get worse under Obama - you can't punch holes in the bottom of the boat forever by doing exactly what is wrong as they are without it sinking. They have no clue about what creates jobs; nor what motivates men to work and sacrafice and attain new heights - how could they when they are spending their time making excuses for those who have no legal right to be here and who have no love of America - except the money they find here.

Two years from now America's economy is going to be even worse than it is now and at that time, hopefully, it will dawn on Americans that just because someone is eloquent and the only alternative available to prove you are upset with President Bush, that that does not a qualified, capable President make, and then hopefully we will be able to bid Obama and his cronies adieu.

Agree or disagree, I don't care

The real issue is the American companies giving the illigals jobs, you hate on the illigals but say nothing about the Americans supporting them. Stop the jobs, you stop the illigals.

Now we have new laws that also hinder citizens.

We get an attack on 911 (which was a tragedy for sure) but this changed the way we live because this country is affraid. Now we are spiraling out of control.

In debt, jobless, crappy healthcare, owned by china and pretty much hated around the world. tell me we are heading in the right direction.

Kirk Patrick should state reality as it is, not as he imagines it to be. The immigration laws are not being ignored. There has never been a higher degree of enforcement, nor a more beefed up force of men and women to enforce immigration laws and protect the borders of our country than at present time. Prosecutions of cases involving illegal entry into this country and an assortment of other criminal laws have never been at a higher number than they are today. The border is protected. In addition to a tremendously increased border force that also includes military personnel, there is a wall in certain sections, various electronic surveillance mechanisms, drones, planes and helicopters, ATVs, dune buggies, Jeeps, Hummers, horses and donkeys (not the democrat donkeys, just plain donkeys). These strategies and actions have occurred under both Republican and Democrat administrations. But to people like Kirk Patrick, no administration headed by a Democrat could ever do enough for the border. Of course if a Republican were president, than the Democrat version of Mr. Patrick would never be satisfied with any of his efforts.

The fact of the matter is that the border is being protected, the immigration laws are not being ignored and the effort to enforce immigration law has never been greater than at the present time. Interdictions of illegals, drugs and other contraband, including human slaves, has risen to record levels. There has been so much increase in arrests and prosecutions of individuals for immigration and drug and human smuggling that our Federal District Courts in the border areas have not been able to keep up with the case load. And Arizona wants to get into the picture by allowing their state, county and local personnel, the vast majority of whom have no training in immigration laws nor their enforcement, to enforce immigration laws? Give me a break. Mr. Patrick obviously does not understand the complexities of immigration law enforcement and the amount of training that immigration officers and agents have to complete before they are given the authority to enforce this nation's immigration laws. There also are international implications, an issue of which the vast majority of our wonderful local law enforcement personnel are totally unfamiliar with. Finally if Arizona is allowed to enforce immigration law via a state statute, can you imagine the diversity of immigration laws that could be passed by other states? And that my friends is why the Federal government should remain solely responsible for enacting and enforcing the laws that govern immigration in this country.

If Mr. Patrick is unsatisfied with the enforcement of immigration law, he should make it known. But me thinks that Mr. Patrick is looking for a 100% batting average by the Feds in their quest to enforce immigration law. Mr. Patrick and those of his leanings won't be satisfied until not a single human being in this country is here illegally. This is certainly a worthy objective but not a realistic one. Has Mr. Patrick asked his police department to rid the streets of all criminals in his state? If not, why not? This is not reality. The whining and moaning needs to stop.

Yes we certainly need to continue to remind our Feds that they need to improve their performance in the immigration arena. But we also need to realize that the Feds don't walk on water; neither does Mr. Patrick.

Want to support Arizona?? Go to this website and sign the petition in favor of SB 1070. Make your voice heard.

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=30102&PID=25599526

God Bless America

Greg--- Yes--- Americans must support the rule of law irrespective of which individuals or groups of people have committed the most violations of it. ENFORCE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW NOW!

The survival of American democracy depends on the rule of law and not upon a system of anarchy. And, yes, I do believe Americans, irrespective of color, are and should be for it, because equal application of the law is fair, moral, and just; refusing to enforce the law only promotes companies in their efforts to pay CRAP wages to the American labor force. There are many societal ills caused by ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, and that is the case irrespective of which nationalities, races, or ethnicities are committing the violations of law. ENFORCE THE LAW NOW!

My 14 year old daughter was raped by a illegal immigrant. The DA wouldn't file charges because he feared political backlash. They have deported the illegal alien but I'm sure he's roaming free in Mexico.

Gotta love the politics of the US justice system!

not just dems repubs also they are all paid by big bussiness and all crooked.

Wheres the line,

I think your heart is in the right place but you aren't thinking correctly.

You think why dont we complain about the companies that hire illegals. I agree with you but I have about as much say about what the rich elite do with their money like I have a say in why our country still supports oil corporations.

Every time I hear some ahole tell me its the American citizens fault that we are dependent on oil I want to punch them. How in the heck is it my fault that the oil companies lobby the U.S. government to set CAFE standards that only help the oil companies sell more oil? How is it my fault that I can only vote on two people that were chosen for me by the rich elite?

People, you really need to open your eyes. We are in a very bad way and nothing is going to change it.

When you are born you better hope mommy and daddy are wealthy.

This is Rome. Read your history. The Caesars are the Republicans. The Senate is the Congress. This is Rome and the air smells smokey because we are BURNING.

Luckily it wont be the end of the human race. All good things come with CHANGE.

(edit) Franco im very sorry about your daughter. I would imagine that the criminal that committed the atrocity is roaming the streets of America.

Just another attempt by the feds to harbor and give safe haven to these criminals. I say vote them all out. After a few election cycles we will have all new people who will understand what happens when they go against the majority.

The illegal aliens pose a real threat to America. Our elected officials in Washington do not want to uphold their own law and are fighting Arizona from being able to take control of this matter. If the feds continue to harbor criminals and do not secure the US like the government was formed to do, they are criminals themselves and should be impeached or replaced.

The stimulus money should have been used to build those real good fences/walls that they build here and there across the entire border. That would put engineers, contractors, excavation, steel producers, trucking, welders, etc. to work for the good of the country. As the wall is completed, we could beef up our coast guard so as they can't sneak around in boats. We are the United States, a superpower, let's act like it!

Go ahead and pass the law, it won't change anything. Illegal aliens will still come here, sure some will get deported, but then they'll probably just come back across. Just like making drugs illegal TOTALLY stopped drug use.

As for 'stopping anchor babies...' not going to happen. When ICE gets ready to deport an illegal alien, doesn't matter if they have 20 citizen children because they'll get deported regardless of if they have a sponsor. Also the children aren't allowed to sponsor their parents until they get to be of age, I think it's like 21?

"Illegal is illegal!"

Doesn't it matter if the law doesn't curtail the actual unwanted activity at all? Both sides of this have a lot to gain for political purposes but I want problem solvers. People on the right complain about the size of government and about wasting taxpayer money, what do you think enforcing such a law will do? Shrink government, cost less money?

So go ahead and keep spending taxpayer money playing whack a mole if it makes people in AZ feel better at night. Short of making the border like the DMZ (which would be pretty impressive to see actually) at ridiculous cost to taxpayers, problem isn't going away. It's only a function of time when this law gets misapplied.

Why is it so hard to understand that you can't stop the supply when you have overwhelming demand?

1.64 -- @Greg, "The 70% that support the Arizona law are white people."

Do you have a credible source for that number? About half of my closest friends are Mexican-American, all legal of course (actually, all U.S. citizens) and NONE of them have a problem with this law or with showing a cop their ID when stopped for a legitimate reason like a traffic violation.

Have they ever felt like they were treated differently than a white person would be by a white cop? Actually yes, some of them have. So how does this law change that? It doesn't create racism or bad cops where there was none before...and unfortunately it doesn't eliminate racism or bad cops that have always been there.

The only people who could possibly have a major issue with identifying themselves are people who have good reason to want to keep their identity hidden -- either because they have violated the immigration law or committed more serious criminal offenses.

We Arizonans -- black, white, brown, Asian or Native American -- don't really want those kind of people here anyway.

When the economy was booming during President Clinton's term in office, no body was illegal. It is time for us to find solutions to our economic mismanagements and greed within.Let's stop pointing fingers to the wrong direction. When all illegals exit Arizona, the problems facing the state will not be over.

Tyler,

I read that post and I disagree with your removal. A little too Shirley Sherrod there.

@azdad48

So what form of ID proves US Citizenship? Because some states issue drivers licenses to "non-citizens." So a mere ID may not be sufficient to prove citizenship.

Nice post Facto',

Actually the people who are getting harmed the most, in my opinion, are hispanics that legally applied for and were granted citizenship. The Hispanic American pays his taxes, works at his job legally, and supports his community. Now we look at all hispanics with suspicion because our government refuses to secure our border.

Lets have a frank discussion about this because, I think, this is the way we all can come to an educated view on the problem of illegal immigration. I dont believe it would cost a large amount of money to secure our border, that is until our government gets involved with the contract process. First thing we MUST do is stop the flow of illegals. This is very much like stopping the flow of oil into the gulf. Mexican refugees come to America because they know(not think)they can make it. If we closed our southern border we would force the Mexican government to face its own challenges and quit using the United States as a f'n temp service for its citizens. And thats all it really is, isnt it?

Second thing, and it will be a big thing, we have to give amnesty to the illegal hispanics that are here now. There is no way that you can honorably remove the illegal population at this point. It would be very ugly, to say the least, if we tried. We must create a one year window for amnesty and citizenship, that only pertains to hispanics that are already in this country. All of the "new citizens" must register and start paying taxes. Another census would need to be taken so we would know the true number of citizens in any given area. This would let us start fixing the overcrowded hospital issues.

But we cant do anything until it is impossible for an ordinary mexican citizen from crossing over.

Oh and guess what.... We might cut some of that drug trade that is killing the American dream in most southern border states.

You cant even fish in Texas!!!

But seriously. Any thoughts about immigration and border reform?

Obama and Pelosi both need the illegalsvotes and they intend to get them one way or another for OBAMA is loosing ground fast===the Democrats are out to screw up as much as they can as fast as they can.

But seriously. Any thoughts about immigration and border reform?

America Today-Anthony, I am not for amnesty at all. What I really want is for the people here illegally to be deported. Period. Any hardship that causes them or their loved ones was hardship created by the illegal when they broke the law coming into the country.

That being said...I think most Americans, including most of the people who share my opinion, would be OK granting amnesty to illegals living here if they registered and were required to get legal within, let's say five years, AND we absolutely militarize the US/Mexican border with orders to shoot to kill on sight anyone who attempts to run into our country and we station someone every 1/4 mile to do just that.

Sounds rough but I honestly think that is fair.

"requires that you first be doing something that would cause an officer to question you: meaning you're not going to be randomly asked to show ID walking down the street." Or walking down the street with your little child to get an ice cream, as uninformed Obama said!

@A New Approach

we absolutely militarize the US/Mexican border with orders to shoot to kill on sight anyone who attempts to run into our country and we station someone every 1/4 mile to do just that

You realize "simply walking across the border is a misdemeanor? Are you advocating executing men, women and children for committing a misdemeanor? Because that seems very "EXTREMIST" `like to me. Secondly, why only militarize only the US/Mexican Border? Why not militarize the US/Canadian Border as well. Illegal Canadians, are illegals too you know, and terrorist can enter from the northern and southern border...so we should 100% close both.

It violates the constituion on a nubmer of levels - but the one being challenged (because its not subjective) is that a state cannot override federal law - now I guess we could assime the the goernmenet legal minds who filed the challange are all idiots and dont know the law or what they are doing. But they probably know much more about this than any of the respondents here.

I also find it interesting that the majority who post here dont trust the government at all, think that everyone in office is a crook a liar, and a cheat, think that every government action is somehow a subversive action designed to take away their rights and yet there seems to be total confidence that this law (which according to many law enforcement officials is unenforceable without violating the civil rights of US citizens) will be implemented flawlessly and without error an violate no rights of any US citizens.

Sorry but it sounds like the real message is that you just give a crap about the rights of anyone who isnt white.

Per the Constitution the President is violating Artcle 2 section 3.

He has all ready stated in a speech that he considers the border "un-enforcable" and that the Arizona Law is wrong. Since the Arizona Law mirrors Federal Law (even lesso, since Federal grants the power to question anyone they want).

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

As President, you do not have the power nor the authority to pick and choose which laws to uphold or forgo. Bush abused this way too much in secret, and now President Obama is openly stating he won't enforce them.

Arizona should just pass an new piece of legislation stating that all residents of Arizona must carry the following pieces of identification. When driving they must carry the following, drivers license, proof of insurance, vehicle registration, and copy of birth certificate, as well as social security card. If stopped or involved in any non driving questionable situation they must produce if ask a state issued identification and copy of birth certificate, social security card. When seeking employment they must produce valid state issued identification, copy of birth certificate, and social security card. The social security card could be used to verify the age and place of birth for holder against federal records showing age and place of birth of person issued to. If a person has a card originally issued to some one who is in their 60s and they are in their 20s (gotcha).

Only Factsmatter, your friend can appeal to the Canadian gov't and be allowed to visit if approved. I don't know the exact way it is done as I've never had to use it. I just remember that when Canada passed stricter laws on who would be allowed to enter there was lots of discussion on my cruise board forum. Like your friend, many folks had 1 DUI from their younger days and they would be denied entry. I seem to remember an appeal process was available. You could probably find the info on a website for this.

ES

Have you read the Arizona law? Have you read the constitution? There is nothing in the Arizona law that isn't in the federal law except granting authority to their state and local law enforcement to investigate immigration status and making such inquiries mandatory if there is sufficient probable cause. No probable cause does not mean ethinic origin or skintone. The constitution grants certain powers to the federal government but with the exception of treaties, currency, and war doesn't preclude the states from excercising the creation or enforcement of any laws that might duplicate a federal law. Remember the goal for Arizona is to actually have federal authorities do their jobs, but they are willing to step in and help out to get things going.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizonas-immigration-law-supremacy-and-federal-preemption.html

Above is the website that explains why it is unconstitutional. Go there and read it for yourself.

Greg4422

(The 70% that support the Arizona law are white people. They support the law because they don't believe it applies to them. No one will ask them for their papers, or to prove they are American Citizens.... or will they? because if they did... I wonder if that same 70% would still support the "papers please" law.)

An easy estimate 90% given the current drain caused by Illegal Aliens...............

Milo,

I live in Arizona. I have been pulled over twice in the last 3 month's and had to produce my Driver's License, Vehicle Registration and Insurance papers. The officer's then ran my numbers and let me go (one ticket).

About two years ago, I was walking around old town scottsdale (earll and Scottsdale rd.). The Bank of America had just been robbed and I was stopped because I matched the suspects description.

After showing my ID and proving I was just meandering around and Walking the Greenbelt then hitting Starbucks, I was let go after they ran my ID.

I was not offended that they were looking for a 30-40 year old white makle, wearing a dark baseball cap.

By Federal Law, Immigrants legally in this country must have their Green Card/Visa on their bodies 24/7.

What is the difference? I am recquired to carry a driver's license or state ID at all times. While in my car I am recquired to carry my Insurance and title.

Please go ahead and re-write the law to force "white people" to have to produce their ID. I am sure that any legal United States citizen, regardless of race, has legal ID and would not have a problem with this.

Longhair (Post 1.7)

I was taught in school that only US Citizens are protected by the US Constitution.

BRAVO!!!!!!!

Granted all the other posts above have been very good with very good arguments THIS post is the most simple and accurate of all.

This comment begs the argument of why do some still want to find some way to demonize that ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL?

"Justice Department lawyers contend that local police shouldn't be allowed to enforce the law because, in part, it's disrupting the United States' relations with Mexico and other countries."

At least they finally made the ranking official:

#1 Relations with Mexico

#2 Relations with "other countries"

#3 Relations with Americans

I hope that history does not allow the sugar-coating of this administration to happen, so that voters in the future know to never allow things to get this bad ever again.

No, boldfresh, the constitution applies to ANYONE in US custody. A tourist has the same constitutional rights as a natural-born citizen.

Amazes me that people want to completely shutdown off-shore drilling because one well in 40 years has caused an accident in the Gulf.

Yet, they want to exonerate Illegal immigration when all the murders, kidnappings, uninsured accidents, Identity theft, fraud happens.

We should declare Mexico a Corporation, so people would hate them.

If we declared mexico a corporation, the teabaggers would apologize to them like they did with BP.

Hrm, last time I checked, a Republican apologized, not a "teabageer".

Why would you attempt to attribute a statement to a caucus/small roots party that a major Party member said?

This again a Media thing? Attempting to place blame elsewhere on the wrong people? Sorta like Fox News calling a poor Lady a racist, when not investigating and reliazing she is a hero?

By all means, PROFILE and DEPORT.

Toasty McGrath

AHHHHH, that's where you and many others in America are wrong. The U.S.Constitution applies ONLY to the GOVERNMENT . It is a document that restricts what powers are given to that government and how they are used. The grantors of that power to the Federal Government are the citizens of the United States as citizens are the only ones that can vote.

Those that say the Arizona law is creating its own immigation policy, it is not. It does not decide who can be in the country, and who cannot. It does not issue visas, or greencards. All of that is left to the federal government.

Basically it just tells police if they have reason to question a persons legality in this country they are to ask for evidence and then the person gets turned over to the feds. This already happens all the time. Are you telling me that local police officers are not allowed to detain anyone suspected of violating federal law? Because if you say that this is not allowed, then the police will be prevented from enforcing any federal laws.

People mention the medical marijuana issue. It is true, in the case of medical marijuana, the states are clearly usurping federal law. Federal law makes it illegal, but yet states get away with making it legal. (I think it should be legal by the way, with heavy penalties for "fakers")

Cities that come out as sanctuary cities are also usurping federal law. They have laws that say that the local police may not enforce federal law. Thus negating the federal law.

lest you forget the facts demitrix it was the agriculture dept. that acted along with the naacp calling for her dismissal before fox ever commented on the whloe contrived sordid affair.after all the naacp was in possesion of the unedited version due to the fact that the speech she gave was taped by them at one of their functions.blaming the caboose for where the train goes is pretty lame.....even by liberal standards.

I'm all for Arizona enforcing its' border,since the Federal government continues to refuse to. One unfortunate side effect of all this attention is that it prevents any legitimate discussion of true immigration reform from coming up. I believe we absolutely have to do something about the people here and to allow some sort of orderly process for migrant workers that fixes the broken system we currently have which is why we have 12-20 million illegal aliens in our country to start with. No matter what that something is it HAS to include SECURING THE BORDERS which the Arizona law really doesn't do a lot to address other than after the fact !!

Illegal immigrants in Arizona have no rights to be violated. They have no right to be here.

Most amazing thing is Liberals blaming Conservatives for Utilizing illegal immigrants as a cheap workforce, when Conservatives want the border shut down and Liberals want them to have free reign.

Which is it?

You realize "simply walking across the border is a misdemeanor? Are you advocating executing men, women and children for committing a misdemeanor? Because that seems very "EXTREMIST" `like to me.

Your characterization does not change my opinion: Yes. I want it to stop and I think most Americans do as well. If shooting people when they try to cross is what it takes, then that is OK by me. If somebody's child did get shot I would look straight at the parent and say "why would you put your own flesh and blood at such risk?"

Don't get all crazy on me. I just threw out what kind of immigration "reform" I am willing to accept if it includes amnesty. Remember, my first choice is just deport every illegal. My guess though is that you whine to me about how that might hurt women and children, too, because it will break up families. Same deal. Those people are the ones that put their family members in harms way. It is no different than when someone commits a crime and then goes to prison. Their family suffers but it is not the fault of the police nor the judge nor the victim that the criminal's family is suffering. It is the fault of the criminal. I fell badly for people in that situation but blame should always be placed where it belongs.

Secondly, why only militarize only the US/Mexican Border? Why not militarize the US/Canadian Border as well. Illegal Canadians, are illegals too you know, and terrorist can enter from the northern and southern border...so we should 100% close both.

Well it seems that is where the biggest problem is. If someday we have masses of Canadians running their way into the U.S., then we can deal with the problem there in the same fashion.

The difference right now is that Canada appears to be a good border partner while Mexico does not.

Actually what we need to do is change the 14th Amendment. No more anchor babies. One parent must be an American for a birth certificate is issued. Other countries do this, why not us. If they know we will not support their anchor babies, maybe they will stay home.

What really grabs me is this nonsense about racial profiling. I seriously doubt the police will find many Germans sneaking across the border. Or Arabs. Or Samoans. Or Japanese. Or Chinese. It is absolute insanity to think that because a police officer will be required to ask for proof of citizenship that it's racial profiling. Have it stamped on the driver's license, and require proof of citizenship with they get an ID card or Driver's license. And make it a requirement to have a state issued ID or Driver's license in order to apply for welfare, or enroll your children in school, or food stamps, or to open a bank account. US citizens will have these documents as a normal part of their lives. Guess who won't? ILLEGALS!!! Viva Jan Brewer!

And in all honesty, folks. If we're going to kick out illegals, let's get face to face with Mexico and tell them they need to clean up their country so it's prosperous and people can earn a living within their borders. It is absolutely shameful that Mexico's citizens don't want to live there, and can't earn a living there. Calderon needs to pull his head out and fix his country, and stop playing with these drug cartels. Time to be lethal.

@longhair, exactly what does you comment have to do with this? US Citizens = Yes, Illeagals = no... end of discussion

I agree with you entirely! They have ignored much of the constitution anyway! Give money and power to big businesses and those people that don't pay into the system but will take food stamps, rob legal citizens for jobs, education, scholarships... the list can go on.

@kmcampbell-- finally a real person that has actually said something worth reading! thank you!

I love this law. Just like the "illegal immigrants" are criminals (by definition) by crossing the border, I too am a criminal, since I don't have any papers. I am a U.S. Citizen who does not carry any documents showing my citizenship. Instead, I carry the color of my skin, color of my hair, color of my eyes and clothing on my back that is not from the latest fads or runway show. I have an accent in all three languages that I speak. If my wife, who is a U.S. citizen gets pulled over for going 5 miles over or under the speed limit, and I accidently speak out loud to her in one of the other two languages that is not English, I could very reasonable be asked to produce some documents. I could possible say the wrong thing to the police officer who might have me step out of the car and ask me to produce some documents. I don't have any documents, so I will be spending some time in prison, eating three meals a day on your AZ tax dollars. My wife will also be arrested for harboring an undocumented person. My car will also be impounded since I was in the car. Everybody who says this law mirrors federal law has not read the law. Everybody keeps saying the same thing verbatim. This law makes it a crime for LEGAL IMMIGRANTS not carry documents. I thought this law was supposed to ONLY get rid of "Illegal""undocumented" persons. This law is racist, very racist, unless you are white and don't have a foreign accent. Who will defend this poor U.S. Citizen who will not have money to be bail out of prison. I can't even afford a passport. I can't afford to reorder my birth certificate. I can't afford to produce my genealogy showing multiple generations of darker colored U.S. born citizens. I can't afford that white coloring cream that Sammy Sosa uses. Will someone help me when I am incarcerated or will I have to rot in prison? God please help us!

Any American citizen who spent 10 seconds looking at my wife's shattered and broken body in the skilled nursing center she's now at in Albuquerque, NM. would be all for slamming the border shut tighter than a frogs' ass and deporting every one of these illegal bastards.

It's where we moved her when she was released from University of New Mexico Hospital after she was run down on her motorcycle by an illegal peice of trash named Cruz Hernandez. Of course the illegal has nothing worth suing his ass for, he had no business being in this country at all even though he seems to have more rights than my natural born U.S. citizen wife.

Click on my screen name to see the price Americans pay for illegal immigration.

I'm not sorry that the illegal immigrant scum have put you in this disposition I Got No papers.

If you refuse to carry a state ID on you then I suggest you have your wife bring you some lube in prison. Not an ounce of sympathy here bub. I'm white and let's see what's in my wallet that is with me at all times.

SS Card

State ID

Drivers Licence

Nobody cares about your laziness. The days of the illegal immigrant are numbered. There isn't enough prosperity to go around and mud slides downhill, not up. Natural born citizens and legal immigrants are on the top of hill and the illegals are on the bottom.

I know alot of people have family and friends that are illegal. Even the ones that don't feel an unfairness here but get over it. Africa and Europe are across an ocean so 25 million of them can't just waltz on over here so easy and ruin your hispanic communities.

These illegals can all die in a fire as far as I'm concerned. This is my hill, this your hill, this is not their hill. Won't happen. No amnesty, no surrender. That is Spartan law.

Patrick,

Illegal Immigrants have not put me in this disposition. Jan Brewer put me in this disposition. It is so easy to demonize those that "are on the bottom" as you very eloquently put it. The fact is that you will never have to carry your Driver License, State Card, SS Card. You carry them because you are not "lazy." I do carry the same documents. I was just illustrating that I will have to carry them or like you put it "carry teh lube." I bow down to you Mr. Spartan. I know that I will never be on top of the hill with your kind. This country is not about being a U.S. Citizen and having equal rights. This country is about White's finding ways to roll others off the top. Jan Brewer came up with this law, not to get rid of undocumented persons. She was nobody until she signed this law. By demonizing the weakest it made her stronger. If you study political science you will know that historicaly this is a ticket winner. Hitler was the prime example. I find it interesting that Americans can waltz on to any part of the world and we are fortunate to be accepted. On the other hand, Americans are very selective on who they decide to allow to waltz in to these lands. I will not lose sleep over this law. History repeats itself. Remembe Manifest Destiny? It is Manifest Destiny for Mexicans to return to the lands that were once theirs.

Here's an idea: EVERYONE should carry a proof of residency card along with their proof of insurance and driver's license. Employers, car and motorcycle dealerships, mortgage companies and landlords should be required to ask for this card as well as law enforcement, insurance providers, schools, etc.

Though I'm a democrat who supports our president, I feel he's terribly misguided in this situation. We came here legally and I was taught to respect this country's laws.

Also known as a national ID card. How can you tell who is a US citizen and who is an illegal immigrant? Only the legal immigrants have documentation. We really need a national ID card for citizens. Heck we already have the ID number in the way of the SSN. Why not recreate the SS card with a picture and biometrics. Then you have a National ID card. Require it for any government services. So you have a National ID card, a green card, or you are here illegally.

FaithPatienceProgress:

The I believe your proposition is fair. Key is that Everyone should have to provide the documents, if you don't carry the proper document's would be a misdemeanor. That is my issue with the AZ law. It makes it a misdemeanor for legal immigrants to not carry their documents. If they are already in this country legally why do you make them into criminals if they don't have their documents? Imagine how long it takes to replace lost or stolen documents? It could take several months, before you could get replacements. If this is a law against illegals, then don't set up legal immigrants to be harrassed.

The republicans won't be able to handle it. trhere still working on a blank piece op paper for healthcare.

I've been reading people saying they carry their SS card with them for identification.

Please - don't. There's a reason for it: It can be stolen and used for many things that are illegal, even potentially being stolen to use as "ID" for illegals to get jobs.

I'd recommend memorizing your number and putting it in a very safe location. As for myself, I have my SS and driver's license memorized so I can give them out at a moment's notice if needed for identification - as well as carry the required papers I'm supposed to have when I drive or even vote.

And - this should be obvious, if you're here legally, you shouldn't be embarrassed to show your identification, especially if you're a legal immigrant or have a visa/green card and are working to get your citizenship legally. You've earned your right to be a citizen, and while it's a shame that you have to sometimes prove who you are because of those who cheat, at least you can say you're doing it the right way.

states legally can pass their own laws, and that is the law. federal law will usurp state law how ever in this case they match so there is no issue. AZ is not violating Federal law if the two laws match. they are not doing anything that is illegal under federal law, merely enforcing what is legal under federal law.

Brokinarrow,

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

OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

here is the problem I have with this law, remove this paragraph and I am OK with it.

for any lawful contact: So if I am sitting at a bus stop minding my own business, and a police officer walks by and says hello, does this constitute lawful contact? Certainly.

Where reasonable suspicion exists: Define reasonable suspicion. Is that based on the color of my skin? if so that is racism. pure and simple. If two people of Hispanic origin are sitting at a bus stop conversing in Spanish rather than English, does that constitute reasonable suspicion?

Go a step further: what if two blacks are sitting and conversing in a foreign langauge? should they be checked for immigration status? Uh Oh, getting slippery, huh?

what if two whites are conversing in Russian? should their papers be checked? Now hold on a damn minute this just got out of hand.

see how this goes? why not just go door to door with no warrants and search every single household in AZ? that will surely cut down on illegals.

This sections smacks of Jim Crow to me.

This is not about the rights of illegals, they should have none in my opinion. it is about the rights of the LEGAL immigrants here. this country was founded by and of LEGAL immigrants, and those that are here LEGALLY have the right to not be harassed by police simply because of their heritage. I thought we cleared all that up in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .

The law as written basically allows police to interogate anyone anywhere at any time. But lets face facts, in AZ that means Hispanics. And that is racism at its finest.

Oh for all of you who seem to think that you are already required by law to carry documentation:

When was the last time you went for a spin and left your passport at home, (because a drivers license is NOT considered documentation of citizenship in this country) and were deported from the country for not having it on your person? Hell for that matter were you arrested? Fined?

As this is an Arizona law, it is reasonable to assume we are referring to Mexicans here, every time you see the words Illegal alien in this bill simply insert the word "Mexican" and see how far you can read it with out screaming racism.

All Mexicans are required to carry documentation at all times. yea that's not racist at all.

And if it really is about Illegals and not about Mexicans, do you honestly believe that Whites will be checked for immigration status? And if they are how long before some white guy sues AZ for illegal search and seizure?

"And all Jews shall be required to wear a Yellow Star of David, prominently affixed to the left lapel...."

Sound familiar?

AfghanWarVet....First, thank you for your service and sacrifices and may God bless you.

Regarding carrying ID, just wanted to let everyone know, that under federal law, ICE and Border Patrol agents have the right to stop anyone, anywhere, at anytime and for absolutely no other reason than to demand proof of citizenship.

So if you're angry about the Arizona law, you should be fuming at the Federal government.

Has anyone considered how racist it is to allow a disproportionate number of Hispanics into this country, when the vast majority of the world's poor are not Hispanic?

WOW... I just read the Arizona Law!! It references everything back to the Federal Government Immigration Law. I now understand why the Feds are so upset about this law. It opens up lawsuits againt the Federal Government under Immigration Laws as well as Human Trafficing Laws... WOW, Obama has a lot of questions to answer just on that alone. Why doesn't someone from the media run that story?

HS,

I was unaware of that. I will have to do some research here. If what you say is true then that is no better than the law in arizona, well except for the fact that in AZ, the law WILL be used to specifically target Mexicans. The GOP won't admit that, but Segregations would not admit their stance was to discriminate against blacks, but everyone saw the truth and chose to ignore it.

You can bet your ass that the first time an ICE agent stops me just to ask for documentation he will have a legal fight on his hands.

Just two cents, I have more than once pointed out I was born and raised in Detroit MI. I have also done the same I moved south to get ahead. I have also pointed out the area I live in is rural GA. Someone here pointed out that there was not an Illegal Immigrant problem under President Clinton and that is BS. When that administration signed BOTH NAFTA AND GATT is when the really large 1st wave came into the area. To keep competitve and a good profit for the small business in the area that is where they got a real big toe hold. There is a company that was reported alot to ICE for those hiring practices but no one did anything. this was mid to late 90's. The other reason was because things were doing ok. I have seen alot in my life the unions got greedy and people that were working and getting full benefits were complaining it was not enough. We are talking everything. Unlike now if you are lucky to work for a small company who tries provide you with some sort of health care. The reason I brought all of this up is even Big Eared Perot said the signing of those would finish the working class off. How short Americans memories are.

The other reason President Obama Will never go after the Big Cities is because that is where most of the I AM ENTILED AND OWED HAVE BEEN BEING PLANTED AND HAVE COME TO FULL BLOOM. I have seen Detroit, Flint, Bay City, Saginaw and many others have withered away to being survivors but not thrieving communities as they once were. Why do you think places like California, New York, Michigan, and other states have been in the red because they have been so far to the left for over 40 years that now they do not have a true working middle class as they have pushed them to the brink of extinction. So while Most did not pay attention as that it did not directly effect them this is why things have gotten so far out of whack. Because now more than ever in the last 18 years of wheeling and dealing Washington's true Elitests selves have been draining and filling their pockets. Both sides of the aisle and until most of the far left and far right wake up things will only get worse.

AGAIN I take exception to Newvine's headline.

RIGHTS GROUPS? What about my rights as an American?

AZ has already won 7 of 7 federal lawsuits challenging AZ's laws. I have no doubt it will be 8 for 8.

Gee thanks Obama for wasting even more money.

WOW... I just read the Arizona Law!! It references everything back to the Federal Government Immigration Law. I now understand why the Feds are so upset about this law. It opens up lawsuits againt the Federal Government under Immigration Laws as well as Human Trafficing Laws... WOW, Obama has a lot of questions to answer just on that alone. Why doesn't someone from the media run that story?

Where have you been? The North Pole or South Pole?

And worse, they'll bring their families here. This will thoroughly bankrupt this country, ruin our communities, and turn America into the 3rd world cesspools they abandoned like cowards.

Look at our inner cities (like LA, Oakland, Phoenix, etc.) with large Hispanic immigrants; they're crime-ridden, gang-infested, and splattered with grafitti. And states with large Hispanic populations are flat broke. Why? This isn't rocket-science, and all you have to do is go to the barrios and look around at all the teen-aged women pushing baby-carriages around (whose delivery costs were paid for by the taxpayers, and who are on public assistance), or go to the hospitals and schools and see how many Hispanic freeloaders are soaking us.

I can vouch for that. I often feel as if I live in the third world. I live in the second largest city of the United States. It's really sickening.

I love the city pace but am starting to think about moving to Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Palos Verdes to live with rich people and get away from the third world, but then the job opportunities are not that great.

People who don't live in the states with the problem JUST DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

here is the problem I have with this law, remove this paragraph and I am OK with it.

What makes you the legal expert that you can demand changes to laws? A whole bunch of lawyers already worked on the law. You think you know more than they do?

PUH-LEEZ spare me your rhetoric and smugness. Who do you think you are?

Arizona’s ‘Papers Please’ Law

It's not just a mirror image of federal law, and allows some [racial] profiling. But, in theory, no more than what the courts permit already.

Excerpts:

Perhaps the single biggest reason this law is so controversial is that immigration – like, say, foreign policy – always has been the purview of the federal government. The feds’ authority is rooted in Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization." As a practical matter, said Kevin Johnson, an immigration law expert and dean of the University of California at Davis School of Law, it’s unworkable for states to have their own immigration laws, "just like states can’t have their own foreign policies." He noted that "the federal government is more inclined to consider the national interest." For that reason, Johnson believes that legal challenges to the law – several have already been filed, and the Obama administration is also considering a lawsuit – are likely to succeed under the federal preemption doctrine, which is based on the Constitution’s Article VI, clause 2. Known as the supremacy clause, it says that federal law shall bind "judges in every state" even if state law contradicts it.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/

Q: Do illegal immigrants -- have any rights?
A: Yes.

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Just a thought,

How many of you out there fear a back lash in the event this admistration should win this court fight???? I don't think it would be one of our finest hours so to speak, but it's just a thought.

for all of those posts that have stated in essence "......if you are an American Citizen do you carry your papers...." "....how would you feel being detained..."

You do not need your "papers", if you have a state issued ID (drivers licence, passport, etc) that will suffice. If I visit another country (and I have been asked for my passport in Canada) I must carry these documents with me at all times.

I was stopped in Columbus Ohio about 6 years ago and did not have my liscense with me, I was arrested, my car was impounded, and I spent 12 hours in jail waiting to be processed and I have NOTHING on my record and it was the first time I had ever been arrested. But, because I could not prove who I was or that I had a right to be driving, I was detained.

So, yes it is perfectly acceptable for an officer of the law to ask for your license or ID, if you have none and you are driving, you should be arrested, a background check performed, and if found to be here illegally you should immediately be deported.

Arizona will win this ruling. If they do not, then all Arizona police officers should be directed to merely enforce the Federal law (which pretty much says the same thing).

Too bad Arizona didn't simply authorize and require State and Local law enforcement officers to enforce existing Federal immigration laws - which are actually more stringent than Arizona's new law (Federal law doesn't even require "Reasonable Suspicion" or another legal cause for stopping someone to question them about their legal status).

Federal appeals courts have consistently allowed enforcement of Federal immigration laws by State and local officials. Then Obama would have been required to appeal to the Supreme Court, instead of starting this nonsense at a lower court in Arizona.

Longhair "I was taught in school that only US Citizens are protected by the US Constitution."

Your school was wrong. The 14th Amendment states;

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Whether a citizen or not, they are "persons".

Roy, that very word "jurisdiction" has legal implications and interpretaions as well. It does not just mean within the state's borders, but as being there legally. And actually the law was intended to protect citizens from other states.

I say drop the law and spend the money you would have spent defending the law on a new fence and moat with alligators along your whole border AZ! Push the problem to the next State so they too can continue the fence and moat with alligators. Before long, no Federal law had to be enforced because it is now virtually impossible to cross the border from either side allowing the Feds to continue not doing their job.

AfghanWarVet...I'm an independent and do not get sucked in to the Dem or Repubs or the right and left wing extremist fringies.

Here are couple of personal experiences I've had regarding the border:

My brother and I were exploring in the desert about 60 miles from the border when 5 Hispanic border patrol agents surrounded us with weapons drawn. After we willingly "showed our papers", the Sergeant explained he was disappointed because he thought he was finally going to catch his first RUSSIANS....as a colleague working another portion of the border had done.

So, were we profiled because we were white?

And next, I had a physical injury at one time that caused me excruciating pain. In very heavy traffic, I was trying to get off the freeway, The front of my car passed over a solid white line near an exit, along with 2 cars in front of me. A police officer stopped me and gave me a ticket for crossing the solid white line. The two cars in front of me passed completely over the same line. One a sports car convertible with a woman on a cell phone and the vehicle in immediately in front of me, an old beat-up truck with a Hispanic male driver.

I told two good friends who are police officers of the incident and was surprised to here them say the officer most likely did not pull the Hispanic over because their ticket and arrest records are routinely scrutinized by civil rights groups and that any arrest of minorities anywhere near the actual percentage of that minority in the vicinity of the arrest, would deem them racist. One officer said he routinely allowed minorities to break the law because he was not about to jeopardize his career by being labeled racist.

You simply are not thinking this through if you think any law enforcement officer in Arizona would give two seconds thought to making an illegal arrest with the flood-lights on them from civil rights groups and the liberal media.

Here is an analogy of why the Arizona law is not racist:

A Hispanic police officer patrols a sector with a population of 80% blacks and 20% whites. A review of speeding tickets he has issued shows that 90% are issued to whites.

Liberal conclusion: Laws against speeding are racist.

You do understand how totally illogical that is, right?

HS good points, I will get back to you as it is now WAYYY past my bedtime. I hope to discuss this further with you.

Here is something everyone needs to watch. Speed channel, dangerous drives, did a ride along with the US border patrol in Arizona. At the end of the show the border was literally wide open because of rain closing the check point on the highway to Tucson Arizona from Mexico.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/118464

Watch this it will educate you on what is going on with the border security, for the US.

Make no mistake, politicians could give a rat's a$% about illegal immigrants, they just don't want to lose the latino vote.

We have a serious problem in this country when illegal immigrants have more rights than citizens

GOT NO PAPERS - 1.111 I would like to invite You to join myself and a group of [ unusual individuals] who are forming a LLC with the express purpose of suing local and state law enforcement agencies for both over and under enforcement of 1070. Your finical hardships may be over. It is true, the State of Arizona is broke, and we may never see any $ but just think, Temp. Gov. Brewer and the states republican legislators have already sold off state offices to balance the state budget. How would you and you're family like to call The State Capitol HOME? It's a really cool old building with a solid copper dome-really- you could scrap the copper $ . I've been looking around down town and there are alot of opportunity's hear!

This Law is almost identical to the federal law, meaning that this law only allows local Police to enforce the Federal Law, so if AZ looses, then every arrest by local Police of federal Laws will be overturned. Everyone who had a federal conviction from a local arrest will be making motions to dismiss all charges and not just in AZ but the whole country! This is a real hornet's nest!

HS,

A Hispanic police officer patrols a sector with a population of 80% blacks and 20% whites. A review of speeding tickets he has issued shows that 90% are issued to whites.

Liberal conclusion: Laws against speeding are racist.

You do understand how totally illogical that is, right?

conservative conclusion: apparently only white people are breaking the law.

you do understand how illogical that is, right?

LOGICAL conclusion: that officer is racist.

I cant speak for the liberal conclusion, as I am not a liberal, I am an independent who thinks from logic and experience

My brother and I were exploring in the desert about 60 miles from the border when 5 Hispanic border patrol agents surrounded us with weapons drawn. After we willingly "showed our papers", the Sergeant explained he was disappointed because he thought he was finally going to catch his first RUSSIANS....as a colleague working another portion of the border had done.

so you had your passport on you? how unusual.

IT isn't only the Democrats, please don't forget we've had a Republican President for the past 8 years who did nothing as well.

Navy Lady ---"IT isn't only the Democrats, please don't forget we've had a Republican President for the past 8 years who did nothing as well."

You do understand that the USA has a system of separation of powers specified in the US Constitution. See Checks and Balances at:

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

Your comment was a very slick, but an ignorant deflection to say that "Bush did it," even though no US president can force or enact federal law by himself.

Educate yourself to learn how, for decades, Congress, on both sides of the aisle, has refused to deal with the burgeoning ILLEGAL alien invasion and explosion into the US from MANY countries, not just countries in Central and South America. Learn WHY and HOW presidents, Congress, the Supreme Court, and corporations have allowed it to happen.

If you do decide to learn, I suggest not relying solely upon partisan news sources for your data. Read varied sources in order to educate yourself before you again imply that "Bush did it."

Eric-913730 After reading your link I can see a wording issue with 2 points of the revised law. I do expect that there will be some parts of the law that are revised or removed based on the courts decisions.

Personally I feel that if even 50% of the original law is upheld and goes into effect it will be a huge victory. Once the dust has settled on the AZ lawsuits the precedent will have been set for other states to enact their own immigration laws.

As many have stated this will not fix every problem in the country but it will at least give law enforcement the tools to start fixing some.

Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling and trample on the rights of the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in Arizona.

Since when do ILLEGAL immigrants have RIGHTS in Arizona?

Bolton, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, repeatedly questioned Justice Department attorney Edwin Kneedler to explain how specific provisions of the law intruded on federal authority as he had argued.

"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered the United States illegally?" she said.

"You can't catch them if you don't know about them. They don't want to know about them," he said.

ARE YOU FOR REAL???????????

Without prodding from attorneys, the judge also pointed out to lawyers the everyday realities of Arizona's immigration woes, such as signs that the federal government erected in a wilderness area south of Phoenix that warns visitors about drug and immigrant traffickers passing through public lands.

Bouma told Bolton that those challenging the law haven't demonstrated that anyone would suffer actual harm if it takes effect, and that facts — not conjecture — must be shown.

Obama has nothing better to do than waste tax dollars all for the sake of the latino vote? That money could be better spent trying to create more jobs!

To NJ Person:

Just thought I'd tell you that you are one arrogant B@!$h who thinks you know it all and have the right to correct others and call them stupid. Perhaps that's one of your many character flaws or one simple incessant need to feel superior to other NV-ers.

You always mention how close you are to NYC and let people believe that you can truly identify with the pain and trauma of 9/11. But you are NOT a New Yorker. You WEREN'T there on 9/11. You are nothing but a New York wannabe who has to nourish their pathetic, lonely, and worthless ego by chastising and ridiculing others.

So maybe you ought to shut up and try to listen to what others have to say instead of playing the role of a defensive lineman or correcting people as if you know everything.

May God have mercy on your dark, disagreeable, and despicable lonely, cheap soul on your way to the inferno that is so fitting to you.

Yo'Moma -- I always try to address those who post to me, even if their posts are irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

You're correct. I don't live in New York City, and I was not in the city on 9/11/01. But, my nephew, my uncle, and my neighbor were among the innocents who died in the Twin Towers that day. I hope that's enough information to satisfy your obvious obsession with me.

I don't know why you targeted me and spewed vitriol about my character when, to my knowledge, we've never shared discussion.

At any rate, thank you for posting to me. You've reaffirmed my belief that there are many people who have serious psychological and psychiatric issues for which they've not sought help.

I'd like to remind you that the topic of this thread is the impact of illegal immigration upon the USA and Arizona's state law, not me.

Yo"Moma.... Maybe NJ doesn't live in NY... But I do....... My husband and his family personally knew many of the 363 fireman killed on 9/11. The Rev Mychal Judge was a dear friend of the family's. Father Judge delivered last rights to my step-son when he was born a micro-premie. Father Judge is offically listed as the first person killed in the Fire Department. My husbands father was Trustee and Secretary of the NYC Firefighters Union. His father was instrumental in Creating the NY Firefighters Widow and Children's fund, my sister-in-law still works for the man that took her father's place after he died while going to inform a family that their father/brother/son/husband was killed fighting a fire. A fire started by illegals in NYC squatting in an abandoned building.

For you to go on a tirade against, someone I consider a compassionate and intelligent person, and using the 9/11 tragedy to spew your venom disgusts me and desegrates the memory of all who died there.

Thank you, bnb. I consider you in the same way.

I don't even know who this YoMama person is. I don't recall ever seeing the name before. Perhaps its a newly created name for someone I've had disagreeing discussions with before, and this was his/her way to "get back at me." If so, I consider that pretty childish.

At any rate, this person doesn't matter to my life. It's late ... Off to my NY Times crossword puzzle!

NJ, BN,

WE have fired shots about this issue for days now, and I am curious of your opinions of the ruling of Judge Bolton on this law.

NJ, I know you like links and factual evidence, so I will include a clip from an article, then give you a link to the remainder of the article.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton wrote.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/28/4773093-judge-blocks-parts-of-arizona-immigration-law

That sounds very similar to what I have been arguing, That the law will violate the rights of Legal Citizens.

Comments?

AWV -- I'm not going to give you all kinds of links or crap today... I'm too tired and too angry... Here's the deal for me.... Judge Bolton made a huge mistake. She should not have blocked any part of this law. Why may you ask? Because quite simply because the Federal Government brought this lawsuit and she copitulated to their desire. I do not believe she actually gave thought to any of the arguements brought before her. I believe her mind was made up for her before the case ever got before her. That she waited to the 11th hour to reveal her decision was also calculated. By doing so she prevented Arizona from seeking an injunction of her ruling by the 9th Circuit Court. Personally I don't think she has to worry there because again any decision they make is going to be based upon which political side appointed those judges to the court. Also, by blocking parts of this law and basically making this law a toothless piece of legislation she is giving free rein over to the Illegal Aliens to do as they please. She has singlehandedly opened Pandora's box and let hope escape. No American is going to feel safe or secure now. Especially in Arizona. Why should Illegals be favored in any aspect over American Citizens. Who now can stop anyone from crying racism when stopped by the police. How many frivolous lawsuits by criminals are going to come as a result of this. What disheartens me most of all is that all of you opponents to the law ASSUMED that police officers would abuse this law. It would have been far safer to go after any officer after the fact then before. Now police oficers have an even bigger target on their backs because they have been handcuffed by Political Correctness. What do you think is going to happen in Arizona the first time an illegal committs a heinous crime? Why should I pay my taxes to a government that doesn't work for me but works against me.

Amnesty is next....whether or not 70 or 100% of American citizens are against it the government doesn't care they will do as they please. We no longer are a government By the People or For the People....democracy is DEAD. I have never before been ashamed to call myself an American until yesterday. I am smart enough to know that I can't do anything about it. I can't leave the country because other countries don't allow immigration the way the US does. I will say this though from now on when I go to the store if the cashier, deli clerk, bank teller, post master can't speak English well enough for me to understand I'm walking out and leaving my purchases there. I will no longer accept being made to feel like I am INFERIOR because I do not understand or speak their language. I will not allow delivery persons into my home if they can't greet me in well spoken English. I will personally report any Illegal alien that I become aware of. I've done it in the past and I will do it again.

Judge Bolton has effectively killed the union workers in this country. Now it is no longer an assest to be in the union. Company will simply put jobs up for lowest bid. Guess who always puts in the lowest bid... Yup you guessed it company's who hire illegals for much less pay and no benefits. Abraham Lincoln must be rolling over in his grave...he fought and died to preserve the Union and now it is no longer the United States. We are truely a nation divided, and as the old saying goes "Divide and Conquer", next comes the conquering part.

I've read some pretty sh1tty crap on this board over the last few days... and barring a few people I've met I wouldn't give 2 cents for anyone here. You got what you wished for so now I hope you can live with it.

Ohh and by the way did you happen to bother to notice that most of the LEGAL Citizen's that you claim will have their rights violated by this law were actually in FAVOR of the law and that included LEGAL Immigrants who spent a great deal of time and money to be able to say they are Legal-Naturalized Citizens.

If I were a legal immigrant who spent all that money to become an American I'd sue for a refund. Because basically all they have to do now is sneak in, lie for awhile and buy/steal an identity and their good to go.

AWV, here is a link that will demonstrate that the judge's action are not validated by precedent. The problem with her ruling is that this is a facial challenge (no harm yet done) and the extraordinary burden required to succeed in that challenge. Essentially, the claimant must priove that there is no circumstance in existence where the statute would be constitutional. This challenge clearly fails to do so.

http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/48/pdf/isserles.pdf?rd=1

In addition, the ruling is in violation of federal law in that the judge contradicts the requirement that legal immigrants carry papers at all times.

Lee,

I will read the book you linked, but dont expect an immediate response.

No response is necessary. However, in an attempt to make your research easier, you will find the heart of the matter in the first 4 pages I linked to. Enjoy.

Let me get this straight: Arizona only wants to enforce an ignored Federal Law to protect our borders, but the Feds say no state can oppose the Feds,

kirk if AZ just wanted to enforce federal law it could anytime, but SB1070 isnt federal law. if gov. Brewer really cared about AZ she wouldn't be putting the state through all this, the state has gotten boycotted, negative popularity, lawsuits, etc. when gov. brewer could just enforce federal law like her sheriff in maricopa county has for many years. have you heard of sheriff of maricopa getting sued for enforcing federal law? NO. gov. brewer could of done the same and spared AZ from all that b/s. but she didn't, you know why, because she was playing politics.

The problem is AZ can not enforce many federal immigration laws only ICE can do that, and as we all know there are no where near enough federal resources to go around. SB1070 would allow AZ to assist ICE hopefully reducing the burden on federal enforcement.

Machinist,

I watched the episode.

I like how you have misrepresented the facts here. You make it sound like the US is closing a border crossing....NOT SO. The border crossings are very much manned during the rain, same as during periods of clear weather.

The checkpoint that is closed, according to the Agent in the video, is an Inspection station between two US cities, between Nogales, AZ and Tuscon,AZ, deep into US territory.

This is not a border crossing. Smugglers will slip into the US and hide out in Nogales,(a US City), Then hand off the cargo to criminals working in the US,Possibly even US citizens. then they try to move their cargo north, using vehicles that are registered in the US, so they appear less suspicious. This checkpoint is no different than a DUI checpoint in Charlotte, NC. It has no bearing whatsoever on Border Crossing. It does hewever make it harder to move drugs within the country, as a last line of defense, NOT a primary line of defense, that is what the border crossing is for.

It is on an Interstate Highway inside the US. Would you be willing to stand on an Interstate in the rain, to check Vehicles that are not even crossing a border?

Your post assumes illegal immigrants are criminals before crossing the border. In fact, they become criminals after crossing illegally, and the Federal governments lack of apprehending and deporting the illegals is at the root of this bill. If our Federal government would protect our borders, and deport the criminals, there would be no need for this bill, and others like it.

Some are not already criminals, some are. The drug dealers, smugglers, and kidnappers are certainly members of criminal organizations before they cross the border.

However, you are correct when you say that the Federal government is not doing its job which forces Arizona to try to come up with a solution.

They're also deadbeats stealing from schools and hospitals and stealing citizens identities.

"They're also deadbeats stealing from schools and hospitals and stealing citizens identities."

Wow. And to say this you have to ignore the facts that few of them are 'deadbeats' and that few of them steal citizens identities. Yes, many steal social security numbers - TO GET JOBS THAT REQUIRE TAXES BE PAID - thereby destroying your arguement that they are dead beats.

Just be honest. You are racially prejudiced and want to kick them out and are hiding behind these false arguements to justify that prejudice.

And you're not willing to do a damm thing about the employers who hire them. well, if ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL - then whay aren't you pressuring the ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS just as hard are you are pressuring the government about the illegal immigrants??????????????????????????

Boom - All illegal immigrants are here illegally (duh?) therefore they have broken a law (duh?) and are thereby all criminals (duh?)

MarineSgt - It needs to be both, go after the employers and then when the illegals don't have any more jobs, help them find their way back to where they came from so they aren't leaching off of us any longer.

If you feel that strongly about it why don't you post YOUR social security number and let someone else have it so they possibly destroy your life, your retirement, your credit rating, etc. because, you know, it's o.k. since they only want to work at Hardee's.

There is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant". The word immigrant implies someone who has lawfully entered a country to live there. We are talking about illegal aliens. The fact that one is an ILLEGAL alien means that one is breaking the law by being in the country. That is what the ILLEGAL part means.

It is irrelevant whether illegal aliens pay taxes or not. If a heroin dealer pays taxes on his profits for pushing heroin, does that make pushing heroin acceptable somehow?

So all we have to do is pull out our race card and it then becomes okay to commit a crime? So if a white dude robs a store, we can't prosecute him under the laws against robbery because that would be racist against whites? If a black dude commits fraud, we can't prosecute him under the laws against fraud? If an oriental guy runs an illegal gambling operation, we can't prosecute him under the laws against illegal gambling because that would be racist against orientals? If an hispanic dude enters the country illegal, we cannot prosecute him under the laws against illegally entering the country because that would be racist against hispanics?

So what laws are we left with? All laws must be racist then because someone of some race has violated every law at some time or other.

Here comes chaos and the end of civilization and isn't that what is happening today?

almost evryone in this country came as an immigrant. so what will everybody be sent back to where they came from? because the reason most immigrants come is to work and do the jobs most americans feel they dont want to do. and if you like the famous mcdonalds then look around most are full of low paid immigrants. ok yes most steal the social security number of others but let me tell you that is an advantage to some people. immigrants are very hard working and pay TAX only some dont most do and they also get in trouble if they do it wrong,

FormerMarineSgt,

"Just be honest. You are racially prejudiced and want to kick them out and are hiding behind these false arguements to justify that prejudice."

Where did that come from? Who's racially prejudiced? C'mon now. Don't act stupidly. When being for the rule of law means you're a racist I can only think that 1984 came 26 years late. Now sunshine, if you want to allow the illegals to stay then have your congressman sponsor a bill that opens our borders to all. Get it through both houses and get the President to sign it. There now. You've done it the right way and since I respect the rule of law I will have to live with it. Until then they, all who are here illegally, need to go.

"And you're not willing to do a damm thing about the employers who hire them. well, if ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL - then whay aren't you pressuring the ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS just as hard are you are pressuring the government about the illegal immigrants??????????????????????????"

Who's against this? For all the time I've been posting on the vine I don't recall ever having seen someone post that they think employers should be allowed to hire illegals. Cupcake, that's what is called a straw man.

some one-2049996 - The difference is that back then there wasn't welfare or social security that people were using. Back then, you came here and you made it on your own hard work and sweat. Now, an illegal alien comes over with kids/has kids, starts claiming welfare, gets into a wreck with someone, gets hurt, etc - this all gets paid for out of OUR pockets. And I for one am sick of paying for them to break our laws.

@some one,

You are comparing ILLEGAL ALIENS to those of us whose ancestors came here the RIGHT WAY. Of course we are all immigrants of one kind or another, but the fact is that our ancestors FOLLOWED THE LAW in coming here (you know, Ellis Island). Why is it so difficult to understand that all we want is for them to follow the same rules that we have all followed. Come here legally and we welcome with open arms. Come here illegally and we ship you back to the place you came from. That is not racist or morally wrong. It is called LOGIC and REASON. Don't try to turn this into a race or moral debate.

Some One in post #2.8 says, "almost evryone (sic) in this country came as an immigrant,..." and a bunch of other stuff.

Please get it straight Some One. We are not talking about immigrants, we are talking about illegal aliens. A whole bunch of people came to the New World as immigrants and legally entered the country. Nothing wrong with that. My parents came to North America after the Second World War to live and work WITH THEIR VISA IN HAND! Later they became citizens by following the proper legal process. Nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong, in that it is illegal, is coming to another country as an ILLEGAL alien.

The word illegal means against the law. Look the word up in a good dictionary if you don't believe me.

ILLEGAL aliens are the problem. Immigrants are not the problem.

Illegal is illegal I had to do it legallyso can they. I don't care if you are red, white, yellow, pink or blue just do it legally.... The feds have done NOTHING so Arizona is trying to do something to protect its citizens...

Brokinarrow: In order to be a criminal there has to be a criminal law (duh) that you violate (duh) and there is no criminal statute (duh) that makes it a crime (duh) to be in this country without authority (duh). There is a civil statute that states that if you are here without our permission you can be detained and removed. So, genius, simply being here without authority does not make an alien a criminal. Being here illegally and being a criminal are actually two different things. A wise man once said it is better to remain silent and let the world think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You should post that above your computer.

OK, why is everyone saying that the Arizona law is racial profiling? Who’s crossing the borders? Scandinavians? British? Germans? Italians? No! Is Mexicans, and Central Americans, I’m from Colombia, and my dad came here with six children and my mom back in 1969, he got green cards for all of us, so why can everyone else follow the rules. I’m all in favor of the Arizona law, the FEDS, republicans or democrats have all fallen asleep at the wheel. We all know that any Islamic national could pass as a Mexican or Latin for that matter, what is to say we are not allowing more cells to be formed here by not securing the borders. If the FEDS don’t do it, then let each state deal with it by creating internal laws. Every country in the world has a NATIONAL ID, how come we are the only country that does not. Well, to all the Latin’s legally in the US I say to you. Wrap yourself with our red, white and blue, if not willing to support our country, and then take the train JACK. All I say is, he who has nothing to hide, has nothing to fear. So yes, if you look Latin you may be stopped and asked to show your documents, so what! Show your dam documents, if you got them that is. I have no fear! I’m legal and can show my US passport proudly…

gatoralum - Please quote me the parts of the AZ law that set up their own immigration policy:

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

Lest you be a fool yourself.

This is all about the Zero Liability Voter. You know, that 47% of the work force that pays no income tax. If someone never pays into the system why they ever oppose Obama's socialist agenda? If they never pay into the system why would they ever oppose tax increases (they'll still get all of their taxes refunded)? And I imagine the vast majority of illegals, if they were made legal, would be part of that Zero Liability Voter demographic.

gatoralum - Also "Illegal immigration is the movement of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws"

There are immigration laws, illegal aliens break them upon entering the country illegally, therefore they are criminals. Is that not logical?

Yes, many steal social security numbers - TO GET JOBS THAT REQUIRE TAXES BE PAID - thereby destroying your arguement that they are dead beats.

Yeah, because having a SS# means you actually pay taxes. Uh, no.

Borkin arrow: There are criminal statutes and civil statutes. It is illegal to not pay your employees minimum wage, but it is not a crime. There is no criminal statute that says that if you are in this country without authority, you are guilty of a crime. As for what part of the Arizona law attempts to regulate immigration, the entire statute is a scheme to make it a state crime to be in the state while in violation of the federal immigration law. The Supremacy Clause of the constitution and the doctrine of preemption do not allow states to pass laws in areas where there is comprehensive federal regulation. For example, there is a federal law known as ERISA. It creates a comprehensive federal framework for the regualtion of employer funded pensions and benefit plans. States may not pass laws that regulate, in any way, an employer funded pension of benefit plan. States cannot pass laws that regulat the issuance of patents or that set up state rules for bankruptcy. If a state wanted to make it more difficult or more easy for a person to have their debts discharged in a bakruptcy by setting up their own courts, that law would be struck down. I realize that it is not a simple concept, but it is the law and all that the President is doing is following his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Only the Supreme Court can determine if he is wrong or right. But his motivation in doing so is clearly to uphold the rule of law.

DUH, gatoralum, being here is definitely a tort (civil wrongdoing), but illegally crossing the border is a criminal act. Want to explain to everyone how an immigrant got here without crossing a border?

New Approach: Actually, having an SS does usually mean that you pay taxes. Your SS # is what your employer uses when it sends the money witheld from your pay to the federal government. They withhold at least 7.5 % for Fica, another couple percent for medicare and more for federal income tax witholding. The employer has to do this or they can be in trouble for not properly withholding. That money goes to the federal government and, as most illegals do not apply for benefits like SS and Medicare, that money is used to pay for the American Citizens who do recieve those benefits. The myth that illegals do not pay taxes is just that, a myth.

New Approach: Actually, having an SS does usually mean that you pay taxes. Your SS # is what your employer uses when it sends the money witheld from your pay to the federal government. They withhold at least 7.5 % for Fica, another couple percent for medicare and more for federal income tax witholding. The employer has to do this or they can be in trouble for not properly withholding. That money goes to the federal government and, as most illegals do not apply for benefits like SS and Medicare, that money is used to pay for the American Citizens who do recieve those benefits. The myth that illegals do not pay taxes is just that, a myth.

gatoralum, I know exactly how that system works because I deposit my own withholding taxes every month and have done so since 1996. Others on here might not know how that works though so it is good that you described how the system works.

Where you are confused though is who is actually paying the taxes. The employer pays those taxes on the employee's behalf by withholding it from their check. Even though it is called withholding, it comes from the employer and the employer pays the taxes. To some, this does not matter but it is, in fact, how it actually works.

Regarding your opinion on the myth...I have no idea whether it is a myth or not (I am thinking it is not a myth since a great many Americans don't pay taxes either). It is a fact though that even if you are working and you have a SS# that you still may not be paying taxes...hence, having a SS# DOES NOT mean you pay taxes.

Of course if they claim "Married with 12 dependents" they won't pay any of the federal income tax either. You can also claim "exempt". There are lots of ways to work without paying taxes.

Illegal aliens must be deported. The argument that they are only here to do jobs that American citizens do not want to do is not true. If an American citizen would take a job currently held by an illegal alien, the American citizen would have taxes and social security deducted from his/her salary...the illegal alien does not pay taxes and social security. In essence when an illegal alien takes up a job it takes the livelihood of an American citizen away. Additionally, for alll those who are defending the "rights" of the illegal aliens, when you break the laws of a country you throw away whatever rights you had. Amnesty would be discrimination against all the legal immigrants who have abided by the law and have become either "legal residents" and/or "naturalized citizens" of this country. Before most of you pick up a poster to support illegal aliens, educate yourselves. The same countries in Latin America where these illegal aliens come from would throw you in jail as soon as they found out you were illegally in their country. I'm aware that not all illegal aliens are hispanic, but anytime you see a protest demanding "rights" and "respect" you see the Mexican flag. I dare you to march in the streets of Mexico waving the American flag...you will find out that they have zero tolerance for foreign flags in their soil.

Correctly stated!

Boom

By crossing the border illegally, that is without a visa or documentation showing that they are in the pipeline toward citizenship, they are breaking the law. That makes them criminals! Further, if they are receiving any type of federal assistance from tuition grants to welfare, the are committing fraud as well. Bernie Madoff stole millions through fraud and most people want him hung after they've stripped every dollar that he stole, these people are stealing Billions from Americans every year and you just want to ignore them. This isn't an indictment of their intentions or their character it is response to their actions which are just as illegal as shop lifting or murder. They are here illegally, that is, NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, it is wrong!

some one-2049996, you only fall back on the everyone should go back to the country where they come from because you have no real defense for illegal aliens or illegal immigrants (however you want to say it). Some of my ancestors came over on the Mayflower. Aslo some of my ancestors include persons or a person of note such as George Washington the first President under the Constitution. I will also say that there are illegal immigrants in my linage also. My Fathers great grand mothers parents came into America illegally through Canada from Ireland. Their name was Mc Mulline and they changed it to Mullens upon coming to America. That is not really the issue here today it is about a law that Arizona has passed to try to stem the tide of illegal immigrants or aliens which ever you want to choose because both are correct. Everyone should stop trying to defend these illegals because they are here illegally and thus are criminals in violation of many federal statutes.

New Approach: The money you are withholding and paying to the government is not your money; it is the money of the employee. Half of the SS money is your contribution, but the rest is money you pay to your employee that you are obligated to pay to the IRS. You obviously do not understand this. Having an SS and being employed does mean that you pay taxes, if you employer follows the law. None of this takes into account the sales, gasoline, property and other taxes that are paid by illegals. They pay and seldom receive any of the benefits.

gatorlum,

It is you who does not understand. As I said before, I have been doing this since 1996. Every month. Every quarter. Every year. Believe me, I know how it works. Every single penny comes from the employer and is given to the employee (who earned it by the way).

Here is a good example...both of my daughters work, have SS numbers. Neither of them paid any taxes because they did not make enough money.

Like I said...having an SS# <> you pay taxes. It just doesn't. Apparently some people do not know that. As a matter fact, a lot of people don't know that.

Your daughters paid FICA and Medicare. It is withheld from their paychecks. I also employ both of my kids, and their checks include deductions for FICA and MEDICARE. I also have to withhold income tax for the state and feds. I have to pay local income taxes. If not you are not doing the same. you are committing tax fraud.

No, they didn't. That money came from their employers and the employers paid it on their behalf.

Who cares where the money came from. Sure they may pay SS and Medicare, but they will not pay income tax. They can claim exempt so that they do not pay it, since they would not get it back.

As for the gas taxes, property taxes, sales taxes... If they live, drive, have children going to school here, they are getting as much benefit from it as I am.

LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT!!!
IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET
1 - A JOB,
2 - A DRIVERS LICENSE,
3 - SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
4 - WELFARE,
5 - FOOD STAMPS,
6 - CREDIT CARDS,
7 - SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
8 - FREE EDUCATION,
9 - FREE HEALTH CARE,
10 - A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
11 - BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
12 - AND THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION.

Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

illegals send nearly all the money they make out of the country which hurts our economy and lowers the value of the dollar.

Roland: You have a firm grasp on nothing. If you are illegal, you get NONE of those benefits. And there are millions of AMERICAN citizens and legal residents who speak Spanish. You really need to stop believing all of the anti-immigrant propaganda and take the time to learn the truth.

New Approach. You really do not have a clue what you are talking about. FICA and Medicare are withheld from employees paychecks and forwarded by the employer to the IRS. 7.5 % is the employee contribution and 7.5 % is the employer contribution. It is the same with Medicare, although the % is lower. If you do not understand this simple fact, you really are not capable of running your own business, at least not for long.

new approach:

OK so you are saying the employer pays the taxes? so if I work for you, and you pay me $500 a week, at the end of the week you give me a check for $500, I get to keep all $500 and you pay my taxes??

Are you hiring? :D

Now in the real world it works like this: You pay me $500, then take about 20% back from me, and deliver it to the government. It is my money, not yours. If the government did not require you to deliver for them you would be forced to give me the entire $500, you would not get to keep that 20% for yourself.

saying you pay your employee's taxes is the same as saying the Post Office pays my electric bill simply because they delivered it for me.

You put it much better and clearer than me, but I doubt that he will respond.

If he really believes what he is saying, I really want to know if he is hiring! lol

Now in the real world it works like this: You pay me $500, then take about 20% back from me, and deliver it to the government. It is my money, not yours. If the government did not require you to deliver for them you would be forced to give me the entire $500, you would not get to keep that 20% for yourself.

Excellent example! My point is in your very first line "You pay me $500". Are you getting it yet? That money comes from THE EMPLOYER. Yes it is your income that you earned but you never paid any of the taxes yourself.

There should be a law that requires every American to have to file their own withholding for the first twelve months of holding any job. Then people would get it. In that case, your example ,

...so if I work for you, and you pay me $500 a week, at the end of the week you give me a check for $500...

would be accurate and in THAT CASE the employee would be the one actually paying the taxes.

As I told AfghanWareVet on another seed, there is nothing to argue here. That is how the system works. You never actually get that tax money. It goes directly from the EMPLOYER to the government. Thus, the EMPLOYER is the one paying the taxes. Therefore, just because you have a SS# does not mean that you are actually paying taxes. If you think having a SS# means you pay taxes you are simply living in a fantasy world.

If you do not understand this simple fact, you really are not capable of running your own business, at least not for long.

gatorlum,

That will come as disturbing news to my family whom I have supported by working for myself as a consultant since 1996. In fact, not only have I supported my family I have managed to survive the downturns in the early 2000s and this one remarkably well. Since 2000 I have billed out almost $2M and 2010 is on track to be my highest revenue year yet. Oh gee, 2011 is looking pretty good at this point, too. Imagine that. I think I know how to run my business pretty well thank you very much.

Roland tibbs,

GREAT POST.. yes you sumed it up correctly sad but true..

gatoralum..you are correct..illegals are not supposed to get what Roland listed but the simple fact is that they do.

We already know they get jobs..can't argue that one. They have to be issued an SSN in order to get benefits, ie, welfare in whatever form, and those SSNs are illegally issued. Tell me, if someone needs a birth cert or legal VISA to get an SSN, how do illegals, who would only have maybe a birth cert or foreign passport but no accompanying VISA, get a real and l;egal SSN? Answer...they use the same underground group of people who got them here in the first place who forge these documents, which can result and have resulted in the theft of identities from legal citizens. They then use the illegal documents to get "legal" services and preferential treatment as a minority.

So yes, it is true illegals don't get services, legally anyway.

New, I will try one more time, but i dont think it will help

Excellent example! My point is in your very first line "You pay me $500". Are you getting it yet? That money comes from THE EMPLOYER. Yes it is your income that you earned but you never paid any of the taxes yourself

OK so we agree that the check is money that i have earned and belongs to me. It.IS.MINE.

right? so now you take a piece of MY MONEY back from me and SEND it to the government. therefore I paid it and you delivered it.

You are the delivery agent NOT the payee.

You do not PAY my taxes you DELIVER my taxes can you not see the difference?

if you were indeed paying my taxes then you would give me my check for $500, then reach into your pocket and pay the taxes, and i would still get to keep all 500.

even better, where did you get the money to give me? from your customers right? so according to your logic you don't pay taxes either the customer does.

What is odd here is you imply that if you work for a customer and he pays you, that money is yours, but if i work for you and you pay me that money is still yours, until after you pay my taxes.

that doesn't really add up.

If you still don't get it then I give up.

AfghanWarVet,

Don't give up just yet...you are almost there.

What I am saying is you never actually paid the taxes because you never actually sent the check in yourself. The entity that actually paid the tax deposit on your behalf (which is really what it is because an actual tax liability would not be determined until you file your returns).

Did they use "your money" to make the deposit? Yes. Did it actually come from the employer? Yes. Did you pay the taxes? No. You don't actually pay the taxes until you file your return.

I will concede that you don't actually pay the taxes until you get a return.

I think I get where you are coming from, but I think we are using a different definition for the word pay.

When I say pay i mean that the person that owns the money is the person who pays.

You seem to be saying that the person who delivers the money is the person who pays.

You claim you pay my taxes because you take my money and send it in. This is similar to my earlier analogy that you could make an argument that the Post Office pays my power bill because they take my money and deliver it to the power company.

In my belief and understanding, at the end of the day, when my taxes are paid, who sent the money is irrelevant, My disposable income is reduced therefore I "paid"

If you still disagree, then let us at least agree to disagree, and move on, as we are severely off topic here. If this were a story about who pays taxes, I would gladly debate you till the end of time. :)

You do not pay your taxes when you file your return. Actually, if you are self employed, as am I, you do. Your employees, however, do not pay their taxes when they file their annual return. Those taxes are withheld from THEIR pay and forwarded by the employer to the government. That is how your employees pay their taxes. Take a look at one of your employees paychecks. There is a gross amount which is that YOU are paying them for the work they already did. It is their money. You are required, however, to hold back some of their money and to send it to the IRS. You are sending your employee's money, not yours. If you do not send that money in, you are stealing from both your employee and the IRS.

gatoralum,

I am with AfghanWarVet, we are pretty far off topic.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Cheers!

There is an insidious alien force ruining America for Americans but it comes from much farther south than Mexico. It's the Murdoch Media Machine. Made in Australia, stopping by England for polishing and sharpening its claws and then to the U.S., where it has enjoyed unprecedented success tearing our country apart with its psycho hounds of hell (a.k.a. fox news, beck, oreilly, etc.). All this in a quest to collect more billions of dollars. Once in a while, the devil Murdoch shows himself at faux, to pretent to contradict some of the discord he has unleashed, but usually when it's to far down the road to hear his weak, hypocritical protests.

Wise up Americans. Let's march to send this evil monster back to Australia where he came from, or even farther south, which has to be his real origin. After all, hell is the place his machinations and pernicious propaganda machine are trying to turn this country into. That way Goebbles can just get his autograph, instead of writing him fan mail.

Wtf nothing you said makes any sense at all,

the majority of Americans are against people coming here Illegally across our border so get over it

In the upside down Obama world the governments job is to make sure the law is broken and to prosecute all those who attempt to enforce the law if lawfullness might block a vote for Obama.

Reagan is not the current US President.

Sandie, Obama made this a race issue. He needs to do that in order to con new people into voting for him. Many of us that voted for him last time will not make that mistake twice. This President has done more to split this country than any I can remember.

Um, yeah I know who the current president is, thanks. My point is that some posters want to make it seem like this issue just came about on the very day Obama was elected. Now that he is the president, obviously he needs to step up but his view on the matter and mine do not coincide. Oh well. I don't know anything about him making this a race issue, it was that and more all along. I'm still casting my vote for him next time. Lastly, I am very much present in the present.

Sandie - the whole reason he is making such a big deal out of this and trying to claim the AZ law is unconstitutional is so that he can get votes from the Hispanic population.

Sandie, if Obama continues on his current track of pissing off the peoples of this nation, your vote for him in 2012 will be a rare one indeed. That said, by then, you may have already switched over to Hillary.

Sandie,

"You can stop with the Obama bashing as it was senile REAGAN who allowed the molehill to become a mountain."

Care to expound on that dear?

The Immigration Reform and Control Act, enacted November 6, 1986, also Simpson-Mazzoli Act.

Hmmmmmm, don't recall President Reagan ever creating the legislation. That's because he didn't. He was promised, just like Tip O'Neal promised that if President Reagan got his tax cuts that Congress would reduce spending LOLOLOLOLOL!, that there would be checks in place to verify the status of employees. They made a lame attempt and didn't fund the program. You know since Congress holds the purse strings. The mistake President Reagan made was believing the Democrats to begin with.

Yes , I also believe that is the agenda that is being sought .

win the block of votes from the Hispanic population

Rainman.....you asked "I keep reading the word illegal all over this story. Since when do we look the other way when it comes to breaking the law, any law. Why have the law anyway?"

I guess it depends on how you feel about the particular law. Consider the following action seemly endorsed by the law abiding citizens of the great state of Arizona.

Arizon's controversial experiment with speed-enforcement cameras on state freeways will come to an end this summer, when the Department of Public Safety allows the program to expire.

Opponents of photo enforcement cheered the decision.

"We're happy that DPS will no longer be violating Arizona citizen's constitutional rights," said Shawn Dow, chairman of a November ballot initiative to ban the use of photo enforcement statewide.

I feel the need for speed!

Dearest Sven,

I never said he created the legislation, how could he, he was a puppet. But no one held a gun to his head either to make him sign. That piece of legislation legalized almost 3 million illegal aliens. After that bit of business Sven, all the cucarachas came out of the woodwork. So what if he get some Hispanic votes, he's going to get them anyway. I don't think they would still have enough numbers on their side to gain their "pathway to citizenship". In case you got lost, that is the fight at this present time.

'so what if he get some Hispanic votes' um... he is IGNORING federal law and the constitution (which he swore an oath to protect) to get them!! Is that not WRONG to you??

Brokinarrow,

REALLY!!! Do you think this is the first president to, in your words, ignore federal law and the constitution? HAHAHAHAHA!!! Where was this indignation when W and daddy were in office? Are ya old enough to remember Dick Nixon? Good God, in case you hadn't noticed, these are politicians we're talking about here, not Mother Teresa.

Brokinarrow: The United States Constitution sets forth what powers the different branches of government have and what powers the federal government and states have. In Article IV the constitution sets forth the "enumerated powers" of the federal congress. These powers are reserved exclusively for the federal congress. States may not make laws that touch upon these matters. Among the matters reserved for the federal congress are bankruptcy matters, patents, treaty making with foreign powers, printing or minting currency and immigration and naturalization. The reason there are not state bankruptcy courts; why states do not issue patents; why states do not make treaties with foreign powers; why states do not print theor own curency and why states cannot determine the status of immigrants or create it a state crime to be in this country in violation of federal immigration laws is becasue the Constitution does not permit states to do so. It is a complicated legal and constitutional question that could very well be decided in favor of Arizona, particularly given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, but it is not an issue for which the answer is clear one way or the other. The President has a duty to uphold the constitution and, in particular, those provisions of the constitution define the relationship between the federal government and state government. Bringing this lawsuit was necesarry to settle that issue. These asinine attacks on the President ignore the simple fact that this is a legal and constitutional question that has not been definitively answered by the Supreme Court and needs to be. That is how disputes of this nature are resolved; in the Supreme Court. If they rule in favor of the Arizona law, fine. If they rule in favor of the President's position, then that will be the law of the land. Instead of demonizing people for having a different opinion than you, you should be thankful that these disputes are decided this way. It is what makes this country great. And, if the Supreme Court rules against your view, are you going to accept it? Or are you and the others railing about the constitutional process going to go the way of the idiot governors who stood in the doorways of southern colleges and high schools and refused to obey the law? I guess we will find out.

And a gold star to you gatoralum! Well done.

Illegal immigration is the movement of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country

well thought out res[onse here. But....Article IV, Section 4 reads...
"The United States shall guarantee to every State of the Union a Republican
Form of Government, shall protect each of them against invasion; and on
application of the Legislature, or the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence." So the Federal Gov't, under the U.S. Constitution MUST act. It must STOP THE INVASION of illegal persons along the Arizona-Mexico Border. It MUST act to STOP THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE that is accompanying that INVASION. The U. S. Constitution DOES
NOT PROHIBIT any STATE from enacting law to allow law enforcement officials from stopping suspected illegal persons and asking for documents. ICE
officers are empowered by Federal Law to do just that: Stop suspected
illegal persons who have entered the U. S. and ask for documents AT ANY
TIME. All the Arizona Law does is assist ICE in the performance of its
delegated tasks. The Arizona Law IS NOT AGAINST the Constitution. It is
designed to assist the Federal Gov't in the performance of its duties. By suing Arizona the Federal Gov't is saying WE DON"T WANT ARIZONA LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE. WE'RE NOT DOING OUR JOB JUST FINE!!!

Sandie, I'll give you your point that when Reagan signed on for about 2 mil illegals it was the start of what we are seeing now with almost 15 mil being here.

NOW, the one point you missed is that Congress was also to get our borders secured so all the illegals crossing could no longer continue to sneak across. CONGRESS, (and I mean both sides of the aisle) those that have been in office these last 24 years have not done their job. Why? It's all about the vote. They are more interested in what will get them re-elected as soon as they get elected.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On another point, many mention employers and hiring. You have to live in the state with a large population of illegals to understand this. E-verify only goes so far. It will tell you that a SS# is legal but it will not tell you that 6, 8, 10 other folks may also have that same number.

Case in point in WA state. Woman was hired, had a SS#, all stuff required. Got a job, worked her way up the ladder. Owned a home, vacay home, couple of cars, she and husband (also illegal) were living the American dream. It was 10 (or maybe closer to 15, don't exactly remember) when Immigration Officials showed up at her work place. Seems her SS# was also registered to 6 other folks, it had been stolen from original person.

How does this effect the business owner? If he doesn't hire someone that shows him a SS# and/or other ID because he suspects they are illegal, he could be subject to a discrimination lawsuit if they are indeed here legally. Before someone says that would probably be a smaller minority of owners, many businesses like being able to pay less, I would agree. Still it is a problem that needs to be addressed. One would think with the technology we have today, the e-verify system would work much better than it does.

Gator, if it makes it to the SCOTUS, which we all know it likely will, then the AZ law will be upheld: 5 to 4.

Question: What is the deal with the Feds and sanctuary cities (since they are in direct violation of federal law)? If the Feds win the AZ ruling, wouldn't they then be obliged to eliminate sanctuary cities?

Well said! If we have laws, they need to be enforced.

gatoralum, there are federal laws that mandate that states enforce all federal statutes. One such law is also written into the immigration law which with federal court decisions require states to enforce those laws when federal authorities are not present to enforce them. I do no understand why Washington and the White House are protesting so much. I think they are guilty of harboring such (illegals) because they doth protest to much. RIGHT IS RIGHT and wrong is wrong and nary shall the two meet.

Obama promised amnesty to hispanics for their support in pushing his Healthcare takeover through, sewing Americans in order to prevent the enforcement of our laws is their reward until he can try to push amnesty through. The nation gets screwed every step of the way.

Lets go one at at time. JEP hD. I have no idea what you posted. What does PHD stand for for you? It cannot possible mean that you are educated, given the nonsense you posted. Article iv, Section 8 sets forth the enumerated powers. Immigration is an enumerated power. Only the federal congress may legislate on those matters.

Brett: If it is 5-4, doesn't that mean it is a close case, with valid points on both sides? As for sanctuary cities, congratulations on your ability to mouth Fox news talking points. No federal laws are being violated when a city determines that it will not bother tracking down and arresting any hispanic they find is not a violation of any federal law.

Love Sonnet: I do not know where to begin. State law enforcement cooperating with Federal law enforcement when asked is not the same as a separate state law. Read a few cases on the Supremacy clause and preemption and we can talk.

Pjam: How is he sewing Americans? You should capitalize Hispanics. It is only polite.

Gator, c'mon, you're a smart guy, right. So I thought. All you've got re. SCOTUS is "valid points on both sides." Are you kidding me. It's an ideological play, 5-4; it will always be that way. You're livin' in the woods if you think otherwise.

As for "FNC talking points": I don't take my play from a news network. Perhaps you do, I don't. You can turn a blind eye to sanctuary cities all you want, it doesn't mean the crisis won't be thoroughly debated in the months to come in light of this federal lawsuit against AZ. I honestly thought, Gator, I'd get a more objective response from you than another prejudiced view seemingly from Olbermann's playbook. If I were interested in that angle, I could've questioned any number of liberal nutjobs on here.

Sandie - You assume that just because I oppose Obama, that I'm all for Bush? You know what assuming does....

Anyway, no, I didn't like Bush a damn bit either, because like you said he did PLENTY of stuff that was against our Constitution, not to mention starting a second war before the first was ever finished! (and on bad intel at that!)

Gator: I've asked you before, and I'll ask you AGAIN:

Quote me the parts of the Arizona law that sets up their own immigration policy:

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

Once again, I'm providing the DIRECT link to that law. No where in the law do they state they are creating their own immigration policy. They are simply ENFORCING the Federal Policy.

But if I'm wrong, then you should have no trouble in quoting the sections of the law that disproves me, right?

Oh, and to answer your other question Sandie, no, I'm not old enough to 'remember' Dick Nixon, but I did learn about him in school... but it's been a while since I was in school :-) Does that make my opinion less valuable?

with this administration it wouldn't suprise me if they arrested everyone who speaks out against illeagal imigration for voter tampering..

whoever the wise one was that said "they have a SS# they are paying taxes" needs to wake up. They only have the #; which was obtained by identity theft or some other illegal manner. This enables them to get the job and pass the e-verify. When it comes time to fill out paperwork they say they have 12 dependants. No taxes get taken out. And the hapless bastard who got his identity stolen now has to explain to the IRS that he didn't actually make that money after all.

GET LEGAL OR GET OUT>

noneofyourbusinessduh --- I agree, but you forgot to say that the ILLEGAL who bought or stold that SSN very often shares that number with 10-20 or more other ILLEGALS so they can all reap US benefits without paying taxes .... thus further screwing American citizens and LEGAL immigrants.

Well said Jenny, well said.

"Malitia"? Mal means bad in spanish, so you've gotten that correct. We are all Gods children. If your malitia should happen to harm someone, anyone, then they'd be charged with murder or something. Go ahead with an armed response and see then what the government would do to your malitias.

unhappy - Jenny isn't threatening anything you dolt, she is saying these are the possible outcomes if the Federal Government keeps failing its people.

If..the "gestapo" govt. does win on this I see a way for Arizona to still win, make it mandatory for all officers to ask ALL the people they stop for proper Identification showing they are a citizen of the USA....no racial profiling at all.

BTW everyone is already required to show ID...just sayin'

You go girl!! I agree 100%!!

Good Post Jenny,

I believe the Gov. of Arizona , is merely doing what the Federal Govt. has failed to do.

They are attempting to solve a border problem , they happen to border Mexico and the illegal crossing of the border to the USA, is creating problems in that state.

Gov Brewer recognizes this is an issue in her state and she is doing some thing about it !

tcko-How many people in the US can prove citizenship if/when they get pulled over by a police officer, a driver's license is not prove of citizenship many illegals have one. can you prove to a policeman that you are in the country legally, I can't and I have a passport? How many people carry their birth certificates with them or their passports, I don't for security reasons? That is the biggest flaw of this law, don't get me wrong I support this bill, I'm just trying to make a point.

"Voice of Reason" (what a hypocritical name!) - First, you are an idiot. Second, Yes, the government IS failing it's people by not enforcing to the fullest extent its own laws, and THEN sueing individual states when they attempt to help out - All of this when over 70% of the people are FOR this law! Ignoring what the people want is the very DEFINITION of a government failing its' people!!

But here, I honestly want to know which parts of the AZ bill you think are 'stupid':

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

Quote them for me, show me what parts are stupid.

and @ dimun - Actually depending on state law, a driver's license IS sufficient proof of citizenship, as you often have to show a birth certificate and social security card to get one.

A lot of stupid states will give licenses without proof of citizenship,social security card or U.S.birth certificate

Brokinarrow, isn't one of the complaints however the fact that neighboring New Mexico will issue licenses to anyone and therefore is not acceptable to AZ? I can see that being a problem that would need to be addressed somehow.

As for everyone with all the complaints about losing freedom from carrying around a little piece of paper or ID, I lived in Belgium as a teenager during the 70's and everyone had to have an Identity Card. I really don't see what the BFD is. It's a piece of paper in your wallet that's already stuffed full of other items. It helps identify who you are if you croak somewhere, it assists you in accessing your money in a bank and prevents others from fraudulently getting to it, it helps make sure if you lose your wallet that some yoyo can't use your creditcard unless he/she visually resembles you, etc.

I just don't get it why people have such an issue with this law. People don't want the taxpayer base to increase? You would rather pay taxes knowing people can readily come here, get jobs and your taxes will support them because unlike you they don't have FICA, Fed and local taxes deducted? You would rather they get to keep that and then weekly go to the local Western Union and ship the funds back to wherever to stimulate their economy with what could be some legal workers income?

It's not that hard to move here. It took me less than 2 years to get through all the hoopla. And then the requisite waiting period before becoming a citizen. If you can't be bothered to adhere to the regulations or have total disrespect for them and find them racist against your heritage, then why would you want to come here in the first place?

Voter-in-LA, I agree with you totally, If you can't be bothered to adhere to the regulations or have total disrespect for them and find them racist against your heritage, then why would you want to come here in the first place?

Much of the hoopla around this law is simply a realization that the remedy it proposes is extremely flawed, yet the debate is constantly framed as either promoting illegal immigration or fighting it. I'm all for comprehensive immigration reform that would severely fine employers who hire illegals, punish those who traffic in illegals, and allow for more expedient deportation of illegals, especially criminals; the AZ bill really doesn't accomplish any of those things, and it is crippled by the fact that it essentially enables profiling, so it is unlikely to withstand a court challenge.

Like much of the legislation that's been forced down our throats for the past decade, this bill did not benefit from a reasoned approach to the stated problem, nor was it subjected to scrutiny and critique prior to passage, and so it is not a worthy solution to the problem which it ostensibly addresses. Besides that, it helps demonize people who are for all practical purposes pawns in this power game, rather than placing the blame where it belongs. I'm all for a solution, but this bill is not it.

Bruce-2022669 said in 4.9: "A lot of stupid states will give licenses without proof of citizenship,social security card or U.S.birth certificate"

Please list these "stupid states" and provide their DMV websites for me so I can verify your claim. I'll start you off: Arizona and New Jersey are NOT among your stupid states.

For AZ: http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410

For NJ: http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Licenses/6PointID.htm

You only have 48 "stupid states" to go in order to "prove" that a valid DL or non-driver DL does not verify US citizenship and/or legal residency in the USA.

Looking forward to your list and the links you'll provide so I can verify your claims.

New Mexico, next door to AZ, dose not require proof of citizenship to issue a Dr. Licenses.

Foy-49 you are wrong...

Here is the link to New Mexico DMV.... please scroll down to Make Test Day Preparations..... and note the Requirements for obtaining a new license... Not only do you have to have your birth certificate and Social Secutity card... You must show TWO proofs of Residency....

http://www.dmv.org/nm-new-mexico/apply-license.php Oh and before some of you jump on the "that's not proof of citizenship.... It is UNIVERSALLY accepted that an accurate drivers license with individual state verifications IS proof of citizenship in the State which applied and the Country....

NJ - 47 States left......

bnbreilly -- You are incorrect. The link you provided is an unofficial site. The actual NM. DMV dose not require proof of citizenship. That is one of the problems with 1070, AZ will not accept NM Dr licence as proof of citizenship.

bnbreilly

okay good. Drivers License is UNIVERSALLY accepted.....

so hop on a plane to Europe and when you come back just show your DL to customs and see how far you get!

let me know how that turns out for you, they have internet in europe so im sure you can.

AfghanWarVet... Ohh please be real... If you are so obtuse that you cannot concede that Drivers licenses are valid only in the United States...well I feel sorry for you.....

Foy...here is the website for New Mexico MVD.... http://www.mvd.newmexico.gov/Drivers/Licensing/How-to-get-a-New-Mexico-Driver-License.html

Please tree out the requirements for obtaining a New Mecican Drivers license...

You people who are so obtuse as to continue this rediculous fight is unbelievable... WHAT part of ILLEGAL are you people having a problem with.... That is what these people who come across the border without proper documentation are...They are perpetuating one illegal act by obtaining stolen documentation

bnb --- The link you provide in 4.19 about NM is governmental and fully valid in that those who are applying for a first license or renewal must provide documentation as to LEGAL proof of US citizenship or residency.

I think that something people don't realize is that even those who are not "permanent" legal residents, i.e., "green card" holders, can, indeed prove legitimate legal residence in a state and obtain a drivers license (student visas, work visas, etc.).

My challenge posted in 4.14 is still open to anyone who can provide proof that drivers licenses are not embedded with our US citizenship/legal immigrant status. I welcome learning about which states do not require proof of US citizenship or legal residency. If a poster wishes to respond to my challenge, do remember that if you don't provide governmental documentation, you have no credibility.

bnb ... you and I have researched 3 states, and it probably took us a combined time of 10 minutes. I'll leave the remaining 47 to the detractors and naysayers so they can "prove" that a DL doesn't identify any of us as qualified to legally be in the USA.

bn, are you so obtuse to avoid what I am saying?

Since you are not getting the point, and you people are fixated with links, here is one for you:

http://www.getyouhome.gov/html/lang_eng/index.html

This is from US Customs, Note that on the list of documents that verify citizenship status, A STANDARD STATE ISSUE DRIVERS LICENSE IS NOT ON THE LIST. (please note there is nothing on this website that says you are required by law to carry one.)

NJ, Challenge met, and overcome.

An enhanced DL is on the list but these are brand new and very few people have them yet, and they are not your standard issue license. there is an investigation process you must go through to get one similar to a passport. A standard DL is FAR too easy to forge, that is why THEY DO NOT PROVE CITIZENSHIP.

why search all 50 states when I can go straight to the source?

WHAT part of ILLEGAL are you people having a problem with....

What part of violating the rights of the LEGAL citizens is ok with you? \

I dont give a flip about ILLEGALS, Just in case you were not listening,I dont give a flip about ILLEGALS I dont give a flip about ILLEGALS I dont give a flip about ILLEGALS I dont give a flip about ILLEGALS I dont give a flip about ILLEGALS I dont give a flip about ILLEGALS.

get it now? IT> IS> NOT>ABOUT>ILLEGALS>>>>

it is about the rights of legal citizens that this law will violate.

Why cant you accept that?

AfghanWarVet --- Have someone monitor your meds.

NJ has had enhanced DLs for over 5 years.

Nobody's said that a DL is valid for international Customs criteria. The US State Department website lays out the criteria, and it's easy for anyone to find, read, and understand. You just want to argue.

BUT, an enhanced DL IS acceptable proof of citizenship/legal immigrant status within our borders. Give it a rest, dude.

So, where's that "proof" that SB-1070 is racist and illegal? I've been waiting for your "facts" about this for 2 days.

So a NON-enhanced DL does or does not prove you are legal to enter this country?

AfghanWarVet.... Your drivers license enhanced or not is LEGAL proof in most states that you are a Legal US citizen who can travel between the 50 states. We have said NOTHING about entrance into the US from another country. the Arizona law does not address people trying to legally cross the border, SB1070 addresses the illegals ALREADY THERE.....

Arizona law enforcement is not going to be stopping people at the literal border to check passports or documents. If a person is stopped in the course of legal and accepted law enforcement procedure and if suspicion arises that the person being questioned is not in Arizona or this country legally the law enforcement official can seek clarification of that persons status with ICE and other Federal Immigration Authorities. If after that this person is found to be illegally in the Country or the state of Arizona that person can then be charged with the additional crime of Illegal entry/trespassing into Arizona....If the person is not illegally in this Country or in the State of Arizona then that person will only be charged with those crimes/misdemeanors associated with the initial legal law enforcement stop.

Here's a scenario for you... Highway going into Tuscon... Cop sees pickup truck with multiple people in and on the vehicle(sitting unbelted in the bed of the pickup).... Cop pulls vehicle over for unsafe transportation of people. Driver has no drivers license, no registration for pickup, no insurance. After questioning the passengers about who they are and where they are going he feels there are glaring inconsistencies with their stories. He then has a right to detain these people until he can get confirmation of their immigration status from ICE. If they are found to be illegally in this country he can then charge the driver with the traffic infraction and with the transportation of illegal aliens into the country. The illegals are sent to ICE for processing.... Mind you chances are that once the officer put on his lights the Truck stops and the illegals all run in different directions.... There is clear video footage of those events happening in the past.... All SB 1070 does is make it additionally a state misdemeanor to be in the country illegally, allowing Arizona officials to hold these people until they can be transported to ICE...

BN,

Your scenerio provides an excellent example of the intent of the law. And In a perfect world this would be an excellent exapmle of how this law will be used.

Here is a different scenerario of how this law ,AS WORDED, can be applied.

Two men are sitting on a park bench minding their own business. Both men were born in the US, and as such do not carry Green cards or passports. Both men are clearly of Hispanic decent. A foot patrol officer walking by notices the two men sitting there, and says hello. One of the men responds, and the other turns his head quickly and looks apprehensive. He has forgotten his wallet at home and fears the officer will think him illegal. The officer is now suspicious, as it is common knowledge that many Illigal aliens reside in this area. So the officer strikes up conversation, just to see what shakes out. "So how are you fellows doing today?" The first man replies Fine Sir, but the second replies, "Look Officer please leave me alone,I am not doing anything wrong. A poor choice of words, but unfortunately there are no laws against being stupid, and people do it every day.Now having initiated a "lawful cantact" and being "reasonably suspicious" of this person, the officer asks both men to produce ID. The first man does so, but the second cannot. Now the officer arrests both men, one for suspicion of being illegal, the other for suspicion of harboring an illigal. After spending several hours in a detention center, both men clear ICE and are released, But 2 law-abiding legal ctizens have just had their constitutional rights violated.

If the man with no ID had been white, the officer may have still questioned him, but would never have suspected him of being illegal. and the scenario ends much differently.

I have been personally been questioned in the absence of ID, I was a drunk passenger in a girlfriends car, and left my wallet in my car, and while the officer didn't like it very much and had alot of questions for me, and the end of the stop he was forced to let me go with no citations as i had broken no law. If I had been Hispanic, in AZ, with this law in effect would he have let me go? Honestly?

AWV... Guess what in your scenario... White, brown, black, pink with purple polka dots.. The officer is gonna cop an attitude. He's gonna ask for ID... And yes if he's here illegally he's gonna get in trouble... GUESS what it's not the law fault... Had said illegal just said illegal just been polite NOTHING would have happened and he could go merrily on his way... I too have been stopped, so have my kids, my husband even my mother for gods sake.... Maybe the answer is to treat the Officer with respect and curtesy. I highly doubt that a cop in Arizona is going to 'arrest' the drunk passenger of a car, especially if the driver has expressed to the officer that she/he just put the person in the car to avoid them from possibly driving drunk not giving care to where a wallet or license may have been. I don't care if you white, black, brown, yellow, red or green.

Read it again BN,

Two men are sitting on a park bench minding their own business. Both men were born in the US

read the second sentence, in what way was is this person illegal?

I said nothing about illegals. I only spoke of LEGAL CITIZENS. You are intentionally chosing to ignore my words, and insert your own.

I highly doubt that a cop in Arizona is going to 'arrest' the drunk passenger of a car, especially if the driver has expressed to the officer that she/he just put the person in the car to avoid them from possibly driving drunk not giving care to where a wallet or license may have

Yea right, if you believe that, you seriously need to pull your head out of the sand.

AWV -- Again I will state it is a moot point as to whether either of those two men in your scenario are legal or illegal... Anyone who is beligerent to a police officer who in your own words simply stopped and asked "So how are you fellows doing today?" is going to get questioned or even brought down to the police station. Your scenario tells me that you personally probably had a bad experience with police officers in your past. You possibly feel your rights were violated because of such an instance and now are transposing your personal experiences onto every officer. In other words in your mind all police officers have alterior motives for speaking to people they encounter during their time they are on duty. Maybe you harbor a resentment because like many young men who get in trouble with the law, they 'volunteer' for military duty rather then face prosecution for their crime. Although you may be an afghan war veteran is it possible that you did not volunteer for the Army but rather choose Army service to escape some form of criminal punishment. Was your service a way to have your arrest record expundged? Or possibly are you from a family that is dictitorial in nature and after being faced with a criminal/misdemeanor arrest as a teenager your father or mother forced you into the military as a way to 'teach you discipline'?

Please don't bother trying to tell me that this doesn't happen. It happens way more often then you think. Go spend time in juvenille court and you will see what I am saying.

You are trying to come up with every kind of hypothetical scenario that places the Legal Authorities in a defensive mode. Why is that?

Even your scenario with your girlfriend and you being drunk lends to that theory. You seem to not want to acknowledge what actions you or she were committing for the officer to have stopped her and questioned both of you. Was she speeding, driving eratically. Once pulled over were you beligerent to the officer in your drunken stupor? Was she also slightly drunk and also beligerent? I highly DOUBT that the officer out of the blue decided to pull her car over for no reason. If in fact the officer did just randomly pick her car to pull over, detain and question you and her have you filed a lawsuit for abuse of power and violation of your civil rights?

Let me ask you this at what point do people take responsibility for their own actions? Good or bad all of our actions have consequences.

AfghanWarVet There are a couple of problems with your post.

They could not be arrested until probable cause existed that one or the other was violating the law, reasonable suspicion alone is not enough.

"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY 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 UNITED STATES."

BN,

Those would be easy assumptions to make, and sensibly so.

However when I decided to enlist in the Military, it was out of a sense duty, and a childhood passion. Some kids grow dreaming of being a police officer, or fireman, mine was to be a soldier. I enlisted straight out of High-School, having never experienced law enforcement, not even for a traffic violation. During the three month window between signing up and shipping out I was arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No one's fault but my own. I was riding in a car with some one I knew to be involved with drugs, he was speeding, and through the course of the stop it came out that he had a large amount of weed in the car. we were both arrested, and rightfully so. The Army immediately cancelled my contract. My lawyer went to the Judge during my arraignment and asked that the charges be dropped so that I could continue my intent to enlist. The Judge stated that enlistment to the military does NOT exempt a person of his responsibility of the law and denied our motion. Although this was common practice during and soon after the Vietnam era, it no longer works today, or at least that was the case in 1996. The military does not want criminals. Fortunately for me the other party confessed that the drugs were his and I had no knowledge of them, so my charges were dropped. after 2 years in waiver processes I was allowed to enlist.

I have never been convicted of any crime, beyond speeding. I have never been anything but polite and cooperative towards a police officer, if he was speaking with me in a legal and appropriate capacity.

The instance that I spoke of with my girlfriend, she was indeed speeding and we were both very polite the officer, as he had every right to act as he did. He was very uncomfortable with the fact that I had no ID but he did not in any way abuse my rights.

I have been very belligerent toward officers that seem to think that because they have a badge they can do whatever the hell they want. let me provide a couple of examples.

I was living in Fishers, Indiana. MY Roommate and I worked together at the same restaurant. The employee parking lot was at the rear of the building one morning while working the early shift, we arrived early for work and were sitting in my truck, waiting for the manager to arrive. A police officer saw us sitting there, and pulled in to ask what we were doing. I was irritated but polite, as I explained. He responded with an accusation that we were not at all there for the reason we stated, and I became belligerent. I told him in not so kind words that I was sitting there minding my own business and he could either arrest me or get the hell out of my face. He arrested me. After filing a complaint with the department the officer was suspended for 90 days without pay, because he had no right to arrest me simply for being rude.

In another instance, I was sleeping in the woods on my own private property. The area was near a high school, and high school kids would often sneak out there to party on weekends, as the property had been abandoned for many years. when I bought the property I posted it all over with No Trespassing signs. On this particular evening a female officer, ignoring the No Trespassing signs, decided to drive onto my property,(after three instances of me complaining to the local PD that to do so without a warrant was trespassing), And seeing me asleep, decided that for her safety, she should pull her sidearm, and wake me at gunpoint. Needless to say I was less than polite, refused to produce any ID, and demanded that the officer immediately leave my private posted property. when another officer arrived on the scene, I repeated my name to him, refused to produce any ID, and again insisted they were trespassing, and demanded they leave my property. After checking with his superiors, he realised that I was right, and they left. During the course of the complaint that followed the Female officer was fired for trespassing and unwarranted show af force.

These are just two examples. I have been harrassed by law enforcement on MANY occasions, mostly due to the fact that I refuse to allow them to infringe upon my personal rights. Some officers, as soon as I say "Hey I know my rights and I wont stand for this", say "what are you hiding", and others say "OK fair enough move along."

That is why I have a problem with SOME,but not all elements of law enforcement. The vast majority of Officers deserve our respect. there will always be those that get a God complex when you hand them a badge and a gun, and think they can do whatever the hell they want. those I will never respect or cooperate with.

Eric would being dark in color and speaking spanish be reason enough to stop and detain a person that is not breaking the law? if he forgot his wallet and couldnt remember his dl number or ssi number would that be enough to arrest what if he was a vagrant and had no address or wallet would that be enough to send him back to timbuctoo?

see that is where the problem exhists, see if you are in fact a law enforcement officer you know darn well we do not have the time to play immigration, let alone hassle people for being to dark colored.

Awv... by your own admission then you are stating that your opinion on this blog is based on your experience with 'bad' law enforcement practices. I'm sorry I can't condone what you've done iwth the beligerence toward law enforcement. I too have been stopped over the years by what we here in the country call "NYC wannabe cops"... I'm never disrespectful, never beligerent, yet in a calm and convincing manor I get my point across.

Fred........... the problem exists in your head. There is NO WHERE in Arizona's law that says people are going to be stopped for any other reason that they are 'brown in color' or speak spanish. It is ONLY during a lawful criminal or misdomeanor stop can Arizona law enforcement 'question' a person as to their immigration status, and if there is suspicion that person can be held until ICE verifies the persons status as either illegal or legal.

Thank you bnbreilly, I was going to respond but you covered it quite well.

The basis for reasonable suspicion & probable cause were established long ago & this law changes none of it.

I think some people just want to be beligerent even when they are faced with the truth of the matter. That or they are just plain stupid?

BN,

you have a good point there. It is better to deal with belligerence by killing them with kindness. I however do have an admittedly bad habit of treating people in the same manner they treat me.

BN,

I also agree that I base my opinions on my experiences, as most people do. I personally feel that police have too much power already, but that is just my opinion. Any law that gives those NYC Cops, as you put it (I like that by the way ) is wrong in my book. Isnt there a much better way to deal with the problem in AZ, say passing rediculously extreme stiff penaties for companies that hire illegals?

AWV --- There has to be penalties on both sides. First the Federal government has to beef up E-verify. Coordinate their records with those of SSA and track the numbers being used. Second I believe that all Social Security Cards should have dates of birth issued on them. Because I work with children I had to be fingerprinted and have an FBI background check done. I beleive that ALL employers should have that option on top of E-Verify. I also believe that ICE/INS should on a regular basis inspect the employment records of every company in the country. Make it a graduating penalty... 1-5 violations, 5-10 and so on. The more violations the heavier the penalty.

I also believe that Local Police and ICE should crack down on the day workers that permeate states. As well as private citizen's who use illegals for landscaping and house cleaning. Private citizen's should pay fines also.

Other's have said it before. If you make it absolutely horrible conditions to be here then maybe the you can stem the tide of illegals to allow for legal honorable people who will contribute greatly to this country to be here.

BN Nj and eric I am a law enforcement officer. i do use those same tactics to make arrests. we already use these tactics to arrest detain or deport what is the big deal about this law. is that what you want to give us officers free rein to stop who ever we want any time we want because that is whats going to happen if this judge gives it to us.

What you don't realize is i am protecting YOUR CIVIL rights not the undocumented Immigrants but if this law passes you all have whats comming to you. So don't be pissed when your public defender asks me in court what was my PC (probable Cause) for stopping you.

i will say it appeared to me that he might be an illiegal undocumented Immigrant and per sb1070 i checked him for legal status. upon approaching the vehicle i saw in plain view one crack pipe upon further investigation i found a bindle of white powdery susbstance later identified by labs to be crack cocaine.

Go ahead and make my day NJ eric and BN

Fred... I can guarantee that you are NOT a Police Officer in any state of this union. You would not have passed the Psychological profile that is a requirement of all potential recruits.

I have tracked your postings on Newsvine and for you to claim that you are a police officer is notmore than just an ignorant fool trying to be more then they aren't within the safety of internet anonimity. What you don't realize is that there there is no such thing as Internet anonimity where Law Enforcement is concerned. There are Legal Internet task forces that monitor and track these sites and many others, especially when monitoring is requested. I know this for a fact because my Brother in law heads NYC's Internet Task Force in conjunction with the FBI.

Sometimes dude... it's not what you know but WHO you know.... keep that in mind....

Fred --- You can tell me that you're a police officer all you want, just like I can tell you that I'm really Hillary Clinton.

And, bnb is 100% right .... nobody should ever think that the anonymity of the Internet provides full protection from discovery. You, as a .... ahem .... "law enforcement officer," should know that! Thanks for .... ahem .... protecting my civil rights, but I prefer to leave that specialized job in the hands of REAL officers, not some fantasy wannabe.

BN,

On this we can finally agree. It will take a little of both law enforcement and employment deterrent.

The worst part is I do feel sympathy for these people whose circumstances are so dire the are willing to run afoul of the law to better their lives. Most (but not all of course) come here to find work. If we make the penalty for hiring an illegal alien so severe that no one would risk hiring undocumented workers, that will clear up 90% or the problem. And I mean severe, like fines heavy enough to bankrupt businesses and substantial jail time for private individuals and hiring managers guilty of repeat offences.

AWV... I am hoping that the 'law enforcement' part is starting with Arizona's law. Next up the employment deterrent. I practice what I preach. My elderly ailing mother had a very nice woman coming to clean her house once a week. This woman came to my mother via someone else in her complex and her sister ( my aunt). The woman is illegal and in plain English I ratted this woman out to ICE. Now I go twice a week from NY to NJ to clean my mother's house and while during the summer months this isn't too difficult. It is extremely difficult from September thru June which is my main working period. But I do it even if it means not getting much rest myself. My convictions and beliefs are that important to me.

Bn and Nj you both are so nieve are you both even adults or have i been debating with children.

this law is already in place do you really think it will detour or even have any effect on the Undocumented Immigrants comming across the border? the answer is NO IT WONT. how can you be that foolish. No matter what the outcome of this law suit Immigrants undocumented will still keep coming over.

Do you really want to know what this is about. its about side tracking our great President Obama from doing his Presidential duties. Nothing More but you two good ole boys already no that but it has been fun debating with the KKK members on here, i really despise the KKK and all hate groups. Any chance i get to torment, place in cuffs, antagonize or put in prison a member of any hate group, i do it in a heart beat, its my specialty to wreak havok against hate groups thats the real reason i became a law enforcement officer because of guys like you two. No i won't enforce the immigration law because i am not immigration but i will sure use it to its fullest potential to put individuals who belong to hate groups in prison.

Thank You for your approval sincerely,

Fred

Fred-1995068, I am a Deputy myself & for the most part agree with you, however per SB1070 immigration is a secondary offense. You would have had to stop them on some other PC before attempting to determine immigration status.

eric,

IF by PC, you are referring to Probable Cause, you are absolutely wrong on that note. If immigration were secondary, then why would the judge have to block the part that allows warrant-less arrests?

There were parts of the law, for example the words "for any lawful contact" that would allow officers to question people without any other offense. Saying hello to a person sitting at a bus stop is lawful contact, but it does not support PC.

If the law is re-worded to make certain that immigration is secondary, I will support it fully.

I have no problem with a law that works against Illegal immigration, so long as it does not violate rights of legal citizens.

As an officer of the law you know well there is a big difference between PC and reasonable suspicion. the reasonable suspicion needs to be removed and replaced with PC.

Saying hello to someone on a park bench is simply consensual contact & the person is under no obligation to even say hello back let alone answer questions from the officer.

What you are referring to is a stop detention which would require at least reasonable suspicion.

The reason for the warant-less arrest is because not all stops result in arrestable offences. If I were stopped for speeding and a check of my I.D. resulted in me being found to be an illegal alien then an arrest could be made. Without it many states would just let me go on my way with a summons.

erictheredherring -- I hope you realize that the scenario mentioned in 4.47 has been used many times before and is utterly ridiculous, unfounded, and not based upon law. It's purely supposition and assumption. I give you credit for even bothering to answer it.

NJ, am I to believe then that your statement about the judge that blocked the law having sold out to the highest bidder is based in fact, and not your opinion? Can you provide links to legal proof of this "fact"?

So if my opinion is utterly ridiculous and unfounded because it is not based in fact,(in truth: because you disagree with it.) where does that leave yours?

And perhaps if you bothered to study a little US history, You would find that scenario is not at all based anything other than historical data, fact, and laws.

but that would require you to think for yourself instead of blindly following your fearless leaders Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh.

Eric,

Under current laws you are correct.

Under SB-1070, not so much.

The law is not racist but La Raza is probably a hate group. There name means "The Race" and obviously they only care about their own race which by definition makes them racists.

The AZ law does not single out a minority just criminals who sneak across the border and steal government services as well as drug dealers, kidnappers, and murderes illegally in this country.

Brett, in no part of the law does it make it legal to stop individuals just because they happen to have brown skin. Good rant, but not factual.

This law specifically forbids racial profiling. And anyway, hispanic is not a race; it's an ethnicity. I suspect if a person was stopped for a crime and couldn't speak English or produce valid ID, it wouldn't matter if that person was black, white, yellow, red, purple, green, etc.

no pathway to citizenship for criminals.

Brett... one thing you said is right: There should be a way for illegals to get legal. But, amazingly, your wish has been granted - there IS a way! It's a very short process:

1) Get out. Go home. 2) Apply legally 3) When you get legally documented, come back

Until then.... stay out.

I'm so ashamed of most of you. If you can't see the political grandstanding and blatant racism here, you are a joke...and a sad, not funny joke at that. Oh my, these illegals are taking that orange picking job I wanted. Whoa is me...Oh, they're so dirty and unvaccinated. They're spreading disease and causing crime! You people are racist jerks and misinformed. I have many friends born in Mexico, and they shower, clean themselves, they got vaccinations when they were children IN MEXICO. And guess what...even if we managed to get up the millions of dollars it would cost to ship them all out of the country...we WOULD STILL HAVE CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY! You don't want them here? Punish the companies that hire them. Complain to the STATE agencies that give them valid IDs.

Brett4Freedom: It is the proliferation of stolen SS numbers and fake documents that have allowed illegals to get government services so that idea is out the window. As for stricter punishments for businesses who hire illegals, now they need to hire someone who can identify fake documentation during the hiring process, no way to be sure because you can't verify most of it through legal channels, now that is out the window. And lastly, there is a pathway for citizenship and that is to come to the country legally and apply for citizenship which also means learning the language, going to school and carrying your documentation with you to prove you are here legally.

Everyone that says this law is racist, please take 10 minutes to actually READ the law, then you quote to me the parts that state the police officers need to look for a specific race of people:

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

No excuses, I gave you a direct link. I want to see the quotes you find racist.

I'm an American citizen, and I find this misrepresentation of facts completely appalling. Not all those who make it across the border illegally come here to commit criminal acts, or to leach off public benefits...just like not all of those born and raised in the US are law-abiding, hard working citizens. I'm wondering what law should be applied to all the wonderful American citizens that kill, lie, cheat, steal, blow up schools, etc?

SM.NYC - um, how about the laws that are already in place? Are you really that naive? And let me repeat what you just said, see if this makes sense:

Not all those who make it across the border illegally come here to commit criminal acts

They came across the border illegally... hmm lemme check here... YES, that IS a criminal act!!! Wow, who woulda guessed? They need to go back to their own country and come in by the rules.

The SB 1070 cannot be called racist if it is written in the law against racial profiling. As far as the story of Sherif Airpio already doing stops /stings getting ready for the law to come into effect soon. He was doing that long before this law was even thought of. First and foremost the border has to be protected and controled as to who is coming into our country. Then and only then can the other items on your list be addressed. AZ also already has laws on the books against employers who knowingly hire an illegal. They can loose their business license as well as get jail time. Lastly, anyone who gets stopped, the officer usually ask for their license and proof of insurance. No matter what color you are. If you don't have any id and can't speak a bit of English, isn't that reason to check further as to your citizen status? They aren't going to just start stopping people at random. If you are going to talk about racial profile, then how about the black man that just gets pulled over because of his color.......happens all the time. This law passing or not passing doesn't change that.

For one thing they are not wonderful Americans if they are committing these crimes and we have laws to punish these criminals. Your post is makes no sense.

Roy... you are correct. Sheriff Joe of Maricopa County already has the authority to enforce federal immigaration law. Not only that, but a large number of Arizona Law Enforcement Agencies already have the same authority and SB1070 will not even affect them and the way they operate. Please read below.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 added Section 287(g), performance of immigration officer functions by state officers and employees, to the Immigration and Nationality Act. This authorizes the secretary of DHS to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of ICE officers.

Memorandum of Agreement

The MOA defines the scope and limitations of the authority to be designated. It also establishes the supervisory structure for the officers working under the cross-designation and prescribes the agreed upon complaint process governing officer conduct during the life of the MOA. Under the statute, ICE will supervise all cross-designated officers when they exercise their immigration authorities. The agreement must be signed by the ICE Assistant Secretary, and the governor, a senior political entity, or the head of the local agency before trained local officers are authorized to enforce immigration law.

Currently ICE has 287(g) agreements with 71 law enforcement agencies in 26 states. Since January 2006, the 287(g) program is credited with identifying more than 160,000 potentially removable aliens – mostly at local jails. ICE has trained and certified more than 1,130 state and local officers to enforce immigration law.

Mutually Signed Agreements (67) as of 04/29/2010

I'm only posting AZ as the charge does not copy over nicely....

STATELAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCYSUPPORT TYPEDATES SIGNEDMOA

ARIZONA
Arizona Department of Corrections
JAIL ENFORCEMENT
09/16/2005
link

ARIZONA
Arizona Department of Public Safety
JAIL & TASK FORCE
04/15/2007
link

ARIZONA
City of Mesa Police Department
JAIL & TASK FORCE
11/19/2009
link

ARIZONA
City of Phoenix Police Department
JAIL & TASK FORCE
03/10/2008
link

ARIZONA
Florence Police Department
TASK FORCE
10/21/2009
link

ARIZONA
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
JAIL ENFORCEMENT
02/07/2007
link

ARIZONA
Pima County Sheriff's Office
JAIL & TASK FORCE
03/10/2008
link

ARIZONA
Pinal County Sheriff's Office
JAIL & TASK FORCE
03/10/2008
link

ARIZONA
Yavapai County Sheriff's Office
JAIL & TASK FORCE
03/10/2008
link

http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/section287_g.htm

Brian434343 and Brett4Freedom,

First, can either of you say anything but Racist and Bigot? That seem like the only two words in your limited vocabulary. Try another way to garner sympathy.

Next, these people are NOT Immigrants, they are Illegal Aliens; not what you and your friends continually refer to them as:"Undocumented Immigrants" or "Illegal Immigrants". This is not about limiting "Immigrations" but stopping people who, by their presence alone have Broken our laws."

In order to be an Immigrant, you must go through a legal process to become one; Just swimming the border, coming in via a container ship, overstaying your vacation Visa, or being brought in by parents illegally as a child and staying doesn't cut it. You will find the rules in the following:

TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II, Part III, § 1101-1537

You are only an immigrant if you have followed the process of becoming one; otherwise you are an Alien ... PERIOD! Next, if you Violate the laws on how to get into this country (Ignoring Visa regulation , tourist overstay, illegal entry or entry other than at a valid checkpoint, etc.) then you are in the country Illegally. Hence the name ILLEGAL ALIEN. I trust that I'm not going too fast for you. Our laws are no more Draconian than any other nation and far more lenient than most.

1. Make it so that you have to have a SS card when you get food stamps, welfare, or any other state or federal assistance in this country and enforce that! (Now you don't have to worry about these people taking your "hard earned money")

They already get fake Social Security Cards all the time. Here in North Carolina about a year ago, the authorities arrested and enterprising college student that was making fake IDs, Driver's Licenses, and Social Security Cards. When arrested, his computer had several hundred Fake IDs with Hispanic Names as well as templates for making Social Security Cards and driver's licenses from several states. For the right price, you can get anything.

Next, I am painfully aware of exactly how Identity Theft affects people. When my Wife died in 2006, she became a victim of Identity Theft. It was perpetrated by a bunch of illegal aliens in the DFW area. In the week between her death on Monday and her Funeral on Saturday, they opened 71 accounts using he identity in Hispanic Credit Unions and Banks to the tune of about $500, 000. I have been fighting this since here death. It has cost me over $150,000 to clear her good name and I almost had to declare Bankruptcy. Please tell me why I should have much sympathy for the miserable SOBs that did this to my wife and me in the week between her death and funeral. See, it isn't just a Victimless Crime as you claim.

2. Pass new regulations and strict laws against anyone who hires an illegal immigrant. You tell them they will lose their business if they do. (There, now they aren't taking your jobs)

I'm all for that, make it happen.

3. Create a path for these illegals to become citizens. (There now they can contribute to the economy and do things the right way and you guys in the right wing can stop @!$%#ing and talking about the color of their skin and how it makes it legal to search them and harass them even though they might actually be a legal U.S. citizen and then what your doing is not only racist but un-American.

I have never said anything about skin color or race; you on the other hand, scream it every chance you get. Could it be that you are the true racist here? As for the "pathway to Citizenship" for all those that blatantly, willfully, and with intent ignored our laws, my answer to that is: "Not just NO, but HELL NO .. not EVER."

But you,on the other hand, advocate that we selectively ignore our laws and then give amnesty to those that willfully broke them? Is that your concept? Do you, by chance work for a Wall Street Firm? Sure soulds like it!

If this is your idea, then where exactly do you suggest that we stop? Do we just open the prison doors and let everyone out? How can you selectively enforce one set of laws and then ignore and excuse another set and then expect them to be upheld in court? Doesn't that fly in the face of your concept of Equal Treatment Under the Law for All? If that is what you advocate, here are a few ideas:

Instead of arresting someone for robbing a bank, store, or gas station, why don't we just give him the bag full of money.

When a man is accused of molesting children, why don't we just make him a Monsenior in the Catholic Church or a Boy Scout Leader.

Why don't we just write Bernie Madoff, Goldman-Sacks, Merill-Lynch, and Bank of America a check rather than prosecute them for breaking the law?

Long ago I heard it said that "Laws are the price of a civilized society." You are advocating that we ignore some and enforce others and then reward those that have broken the law every few years with what they wanted initially.

If there isn't any penalty for breaking the law, stealing from people, or for swimming the border and entering the country illegally, and every 15 years or so you give amnesty to all those that broke our laws, what reason do they have for changing their behavior? There is an old adage that describes this best:

If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll demand a glass of milk. If you give him a glass of milk, he'll demand a straw, if you give him a straw, he'll want a pillow to sit on, .... and so on.

Evidently, you have never had children or you are a proponent of the teachings Dr. Spock or Dr. Joyce Brothers. My kid learned early in the game that "These are the rules, break them and suffer the consequences." Punishment was fair (IMO, maybe not always in theirs) and was uniformly applied for the offense. All received the same thing for the same offense. I think that is why I have two great kid that are self reliant, dependable, honest, law abiding, and productive members of society. But, then again, I am prejudiced!

If you don't like the way the law is written, has balls enough to work and get it changed, but don't ignore it and then make excuses for ignoring it. If you do, you will destroy all laws and then you have anarchy; that really won't be fun; but it seems to be what you want.

There already IS a path for the illegals aliens to become citizens, they chose not to use it.

Brian43, please help clarify something for me. In an earlier post I think you mentioned you were an attorney, so: If you believe the Feds will beat AZ with their legal challenge, then wouldn't you say it'd be a slam dunk if the govt were to sue sanctuary cities for violating federal law?

Reading some of these posts explains what the hell is wrong with this country!!!! They really do let idiots vote! First of all it is stupid to say we are all immigrants, maybe our ancestors but there is a good many of us who really were born here, and second even immigrants back then had to wait in line to get there papers, and third it has nothing to do with the color of skin!!!! For gods sake wake up people!!!! I don't know if anyone has noticed but the last I checked mexico is the only country that is directly contected to us on the southern border, that has people running accross illegally. So if you are offended and think it is about the color of skin hello mexicans have brown skin and they are the ones who think they have the right to come here illegally, with blatant disregard for our laws or people. Anyone else who comes here has to show there papers before leaving the airport. Illegal is illegal and the laws were meant to protect the citizens of the United States. Remember you live here too! what affects the rest of us who are accused of being racest , a term that is highly overated, and abused, will affect you! @!$%# ROLLS DOWN HILL!!!! Think about what you are saying, think about history for some odd reason it has a strange way of repeating itself. If this law is overlooked god help us and katy bar the door!

The Hypocrisy of the Democrats is staggering. They have absolutely no rhyme or reason behind their thinking - it is just "follow the leader" and "vote on party lines".

This problem has been around for a long time. Why is it suddenly the Democrat's problem? This is an America problem. Lest you there in AZ forget, John McCain championed legislation to deal with this issue. It had bi-partisan support and was brought up during the time when the Republicans had control of the Congress. It didn't pass because the Republicans did not want it. Can you say, "Kick the Can Down The Road"?

I agree, Illegal is Illegal. That goes for immigration as well as making laws which usurp the Constitution. You want to blame someone for this problem, blame all of the lawmakers in DC. That means both parties. Otherwise you are just toeing the current "Party Line" just like supporters and dissenters alike have done for over the past 20+ years.

Well said Brett, I read a comment the other day; a man said it got him so mad at how many hispanics were in his neighborhood and they should all get deported legal or not! That's really sad. I'm for enforcing the law but there will be racial profiling whether people want to believe it or not...

Love how the only argument people have, is that they think it's a racist law. You all openly admit that they steal identities, mooch off society, consciously break tons of laws (the first being the second they step over the border).

A kid shop lifts. Do you not tell him he is wrong and make him face consequences so that he doesn't turn to a life of stealing cars, robbing people at gun point, stealing from homes?

You agree these people are committing a crime. You concede they do it fully knowing what they are doing is wrong and illegal. And the worst part is, you're some how justify it as "OK".

The real problem is your all being enablers. It's been said a billion times. A cop pulls you over, he asks you for ID. You can't provide it? Your in trouble ... whether your an American citizen or not. Cop pulls you over and your illegal, you're already breaking two laws instantaneously ... driving without a license is illegal too, if you didn't know.

If a cop sees a Mexican in a car with expired tags, he shouldn't pull him over? I'm sure you're AOK with a cop running the plates of a white man driving a lexus who mildly swerved over the white line, running his plates, noticing the driver has had a dui, and pulling him over to make sure things are ok.

Policing is about protecting society, not turning your head the other way. Only reason people fear cops is because everyone knows they are out doing something wrong, be it driving drunk, in the country illegally, or driving 10 over the speed limit.

I actually look forward to the day where cops are proud to protect citizens and think people don't fear them, and citizens don't fear cops are going to bust them because they are law abiding citizens. That's the image a police officer was portrayed to me as when I was little.

Could people stop suggesting that we pass laws to preclude employers from hiring illegal aliens? I only ask because SB 1070 already does that and spends roughly 60% of its verbiage describing exactly how employers will be required to verify potential employees through the government run E-Verify program and how employers can face very stiff fines, penalties, and jail time if they are found to be employing illegal aliens. I should also add, for all you "it's profiling" folks out there, anyone who tries to get an employer in trouble by falsely claiming that the employer has broken the law is subject to fines and criminal penalties as well. I cannot iterate enough the importance of being informed. Please stop posting your drivel and subsequent replies to drivel until you have read the law (SB 1070). When you are done, and really have read it, please feel free to express your worthwhile opinion, whether for or against the law. In my informed opinion, there is no reason to be against the law because it A.) supports and complements an existing federal law making it a crime to be in the United States illegally, B.) expressly makes it a crime to profile against any particular group, C.) it attacks the root of the problem which is the employment opportunities within the US that draw people across the border illegally looking for a better life. And lastly, here's a quick and simple solution for anyone wondering how to tell if there is reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally. You have to be able to read, write, and speak basic English to get your citizenship. If you cannot pass that test then you better have your federally sponsored visa papers handy as else you should be sent to jail. By the by, you should also be aware that it is a federal requirement that all people who are in this country on a temporary visa must always have their federally issued paperwork with them at all times. Its a federal (and now in AZ a state) crime as well.

Bret4freedom,

There is ALREADY a pathway to achieve citizenship if you would take the time to educate yourself. It's NOT BY JUMPING THE FENCE EITHER!!!

And yes, if your are naturalized, you ARE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW to "CARRY YOUR GREEN CARD" HMM. Does that blow up your lame argument?

Brett, there already is a path to citizenship. The illegals just chose to ignore it.

Brett you think the people that have had love ones murdered in Arizona would agree with you liberials opinion ?Why don't you go down & help them guard there border from Murders & Theives & then you might not feel the same . If you haven't noticed you need to check the Americans opinion on this matter.

Brett4Freedom...have you read the AZ law? If you have, where does it say that people will be stopped because of the color of their skin and the rest of the nonsense you state? After 9/11 we should ALL demand that our borders are secured and that whoever is in our country has a legal right to be here. But, most importantly, we ALL need to stop trying to play the "race card" anytime someone does not agree with our viewpoint. I agree with the AZ law and I'm a hispanic naturalized citizen.

I am an American in China and have translated this statement on Babel Fish web translation service. Anyone can post any thing from anywhere in the world or can be legal or illegal currently residing in America. You do not have to prove your citizenship to post.

我是一个美国人在中国和翻译了关于Babelfish网翻译服务的这个声明。 任何人从世界上任何地方张贴所有事或可以是法律或非法当前位于美国。 您不必须证明您的公民身份张贴

SM.NYC

"I'm an American citizen, and I find this misrepresentation of facts completely appalling. Not all those who make it across the border illegally come here to commit criminal acts, or to leach off public benefits...just like not all of those born and raised in the US are law-abiding, hard working citizens. I'm wondering what law should be applied to all the wonderful American citizens that kill, lie, cheat, steal, blow up schools, etc?"

Are you not aware that the cartels have organizations in PHX? In the areas of crimes for murder, kidnappings, robberies, and drug dealings crime has gone up in the state. The cartels made it clear to the folks living near the border that they will not be stopped; they killed a man on his own property to send that message not to mess with them, they have also beaten a few residents to send this message to US citizens. How many of them, once they commit a serious crime sneak back across the border and are not found and jailed for their crimes. The family of the murdered farmer, Mr Krentz, will never see justice for their loved one. His tracks led right back to the border. To compare them to our own criminals, of which we do have plenty of, is not a good argument.

Believe me, I am sympathetic to those that wish to come to this country, especially from Mexico as their gov't is almost as bad as the cartels. But crossing illegally is not the way to do it, for anyone, from any country. What does bother me is that illegals or their families already here legally will stand up to our gov't and make demands for people that have committed a crime by illegally entering the US. La Raza has even implied that there will be a revolution if illegals are deported due to the AZ law. If these folks have all this anger and energy to fight our laws, why don't they return home and use it to fight for their country and their heritage. Why should we bow to their demands here because of their threats when they aren't willing to fight for their rights at home.

We have given Mexico over a billion dollars to fight the cartels yet the Mexican gov't has made no forward progress. We also asked for no accountability as to where this money has gone. I would take a wild guess at gov't pockets or even payoffs to cartels. How much more are we going to spend on a country that can't seem to make any progress to gain control of their country.

Roy and STLMike, you bring up Sheriff Joe. Yes, he has been following the law yet when she was Gov of AZ, the current director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, found more ways to try to fight him. She is as about as useless as HSD as she was as Gov of the state, IMO.

I've yet to see anyone quote the parts of the AZ law that are racists/against the Federal Law/ etc. Funny how those that are so convinced those silly things are true can't back it up with any facts...

TheOneGuy..you have a point in what you posted. IF the AZ law is upheld, and I sincerely hope it is, the first instance, the VERY first instance where an AZ officer nails an illegal, who, just by sheer numbers of illegals of Mexican descent in AZ (at least before the mass exodus taking place), happens to be Mexican, the nation is going to be embroiled in the biggest lawsuit in regards to suspected racial profiling this nation has ever seen.

The vine will be a buzzin'

Brokin I have replied to your challenge. please read 1.125 abd 1.126

AfghanWarVet --- I just read the two posts you referenced (1.125 and 1.126). In the first, you did quote something, but I could not find the word "race" (or racial profiling/targeting) mentioned.

You offer no quote about racial targeting/profiling in 1.126 either.

IMO, you, and so many others, are making assumptions about something that cannot happen, because SB-1070 disallows racial profiling. Quite frankly, that's the only argument you have ........ assumptions.

I, too, challenge you, and anyone else who is anti-SB-1070, to provide a DIRECT QUOTE from SB-1070 that specifically states there will be racial profiling/targeting of anyone. Please provide the exact paragraph and page number as well, so I can verify it.

A case is weak when the only "facts" provided are assumptions.

Thanks!

NJ

Fair.

In response I challenge you three things,

1 find and post a link to a Segregation law ( now defunct i concede, but to prove a point) that specifically quotes racism.

2 i challenge you to deny that those laws were anything BUT racist.

3 how can you enforce this law with OUT discriminating, as there are Hispanics here that are Natural citizens, I.E. born here, to parents that were born here? will these Citizens be required to carry a passport proving they are citizens? If you require these citizens to carry a passport but not others, that IS racist.

the point is not so much what the law states, but rather what the law will allow.

If laws were passed allowing the police to come into your home and search your belongings without a warrant, because you are white, and a white man committed a crime in your neighborhood last night, you would scream racism from the roof tops.

The THEORY and intent of the law is sound. Get the Illegals out of our country. In reality that can only work if we require ALL citizens to carry documentation of their citizenship, or if we discriminate against certain groups. as there is nothing in the law that requires everyone to carry "papers" that really only leaves one option.

and if you think your Drivers License proves your citizenship try hoping a flight from Europe with only a that document and see if you get through Customs.

The THEORY behind communism is also sound, but it simply does not work in the real world without innocent people being shat upon.

AfghanWarVet - Responding to a challenge with a challenge of your own isn't the way to answer someone's question. It proves nothing other than deliberate evasion. I promised myself that I'd no longer respond to people who are unwilling to provide factual data in support of their false claims about this issue, but I'm making an exception today.

1 and 2. Now-defunct segregation laws have nothing to do with ILLEGAL immigration. They had to do with blacks who were born in the USA; hence Amendment 14 was created. Of course segregation laws were racist - nobody except KKK denies this today. The US Constitution was amended decades ago .... those laws no longer exist. So get over your defunct segregation law and stop pulling the worn-out race card.

3. "how can you enforce this law with OUT discriminating, as there are Hispanics here that are Natural citizens, I.E. born here, to parents that were born here? will these Citizens be required to carry a passport proving they are citizens? If you require these citizens to carry a passport but not others, that IS racist."

I'm making the assumption that you've actually read this law. Enough people, including myself, have stated thousands of times, and provided FACTS proving that SB-1070 requires law enforcement officers to stop people (ANYONE, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality) ONLY IF there has been a law violation, i.e., urinating/defecating in public, DWI/DUI, speeding/erratic driving, vehicular infractions (broken headlight/tail light, broken windshield, not wearing seatbelt, unrestrained children/infants, etc.), robbery, assault, rape, murder, etc. As far as I know, ALL of us CAN, and WILL be stopped and/or apprehended for these offenses. White people do not get a pass and collect $200.

Arizona, as well as many other states (including my state of NJ) require proof of citizenship/legal residence (known as a primary document) when applying for, or renewing a drivers license:

http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410

This information is then embedded in the DL. If a person doesn't drive, he/she can get a non-driver license that has the same info embedded. If a person doesn't want to get either of these, he/she can apply for a passport card. It's the size of a DL and "green card."

Contrary to what you and other stretchers of truth assume, and pass off as FACT, people do not have to carry birth certificates or passports at all times, whether driving, riding a bicycle, sitting on a bench, or walking. Everyone who is a US citizen or legal immigrant has a DL, non-driver DL, or "green card." Police ARE NOT PERMITTED TO stop/apprehend people walking their dogs, chatting with neighbors, having coffee at Starbucks, dining in a restaurant, or planting flowers in their yards, UNLESS the officer sees the person committing a crime.

Please provide FACTUAL DATA that officers are going to raid someone's home for no reason?

"the point is not so much what the law states, but rather what the law will allow." ----- Again, document this with LEGAL PROOF, not assumption. Assumptions are not PROOF. Unless you can provide PROOF, you have no point to make.

Good try, my friend, but until you provide legal proof of alleged racism in SB-1070, your argument is based upon supposition and assumption, not factual data.

I forgot to add this: I challenge you to ILLEGALLY enter, work, have children, and live for decades in ANY other country and see what happens to you, your spouse, and your kids. Those countries, as well, do not care what race, ethnicity, or nationality you are. YOU ARE CONSIDERED ILLEGAL, therefore, a CRIMINAL.

The USA has the federal laws to do the same, but, as you know, these laws aren't enforced. Enter Arizona (SB-1070) and other states which have the right to create state law that fully and legally upholds US federal law.

You will NOT find racism in US federal law or SB-1070, no matter how hard you try! (By the way, Mexico isn't a RACE .... it's a NATIONALITY comprised of many ethnicities and races .... including CAUCASIAN!)

First of all how do you get a job without a SS card well if you are illegal you buy a fake one so that will be the same if you require it for assistance.

NJ,

First I believe you are assuming that because I oppose this law, I care about the rights of illegals. you are quite mistaken. I care about the rights of people that are here legally, and those that were born here.

by responding to your challenge with a challenge, I simply allowed you an opportunity to prove my point before continuing on to answer you question, which you did nicely, thank you.

Yes segregation laws are defunct now, but why? Because they are racist.

so do you concede then that it is possible for a law to produce a racist result or shelter racist behaviors, even if they do no spell out racism in their wording?

This is not about what the law says, it is about what it DOES NOT say!

SB-1070 DOES NOTsay that if a person is in commission of a crime or arrested.

SB-1070 DOES say "for ANY lawful contact".

If I am sitting on a park bench minding my business, and officer is walking by and says hello, that is legal contact. Now he is free to check my status.

That would be OK, except that now, if this officer has a racist tendency, the law now protects him.

If AZ lawmakers were to reword SB-1070, remove "for any lawfull contact" and in its place say "for any person arrested, or witnessed in the commission of a crime", I am on board.

can you not see the difference, and the problems this has the potential to create?

"the point is not so much what the law states, but rather what the law will allow." ----- Again, document this with LEGAL PROOF, not assumption. Assumptions are not PROOF. Unless you can provide PROOF, you have no point to make.

Good try, my friend, but until you provide legal proof of alleged racism in SB-1070, your argument is based upon supposition and assumption, not factual data.

that sounds familiar, where have I heard that before?

Oh, I know. that is EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT used by proponents of Segregation to get those laws passed also.

no one, not even republicans are stupid enough to try to pass a law that spells out its intent to allow racist behaviuor.

If I want to fire an employee because he is black, I am not stupid enough to say "you are fired because you are black", i will find a way to sneak it in there. it happens every day, even if you personally cant see it.

oh and a word about assumption.

IF a person has a long history of stealing cars, has been arrested for 6 or 7 times, and you see him wandering around a used car lot at night what would you assume? you would have no LEGAL PROOF, but I bet you would whatch him very closley, based on your assumption and his past right?

AfghanWarVet

This is not about what the law says, it is about what it DOES NOT say!

Here is where I disagree with you. Laws are going to be misapplied, misused, or just plain broken. There is nothing new about it; that has been true since Hammurabi first wrote down his code in about 1790 BC. There is nothing that can be done to stop that from happening as long as people are involved unless you don't plan to enforce any laws. I, personally don't think that is an acceptable option as anarchy isn't very pretty either. You, as an Afghan War Vet should know that as well as anyone. I had my dose of anarchy in Vietnam with the 3rd Marines and again with my Son's servise in the Balkans in the 90's.

I learned long ago (I'm 60) that Laws are the price we pay to have a civilized society. Do we, as a society no longer enforce any laws because they MIGHT be misapplied, misused, or even in some cases intentionally ignored by some idiot with a badge from some small backwater town? If that is so, then we are headed for anarchy and the survival of the fittest.

Laws are put in place to protect those that can't defend themselves from the bullies or the Biker / Interceptor Car gangs in Mad Max. If we fail to enforce the laws, then guess who takes over. Do you want the next government to be that of the Mongrels / Hell's Angel's Motorcycle Gang? How about MS-13, the Bloods, the Crypts, the Black Panthers, The SLA, or maybe the Aryan Nation? That's when the Meek shall Inherit What's Left. See, the sword cuts both ways; Is that where you want to go?

If the law of unintended consequences is true, then any law enforced by anything more human than I-Robot will be abused. If a Black Cop stops a white person, is that racist just as you suggest that a white cop stopping a brown person will always be? I am neither black nor white. I am a mixture of Scottish, Irish, Eastern Cherokee, Creek, and Louisiana Cajun that, in a less politically correct time would have been called "Mulatto." (Yes, before you say it I do know what Mulatto means. My mother's family has traced that too. Thomas Jefferson wasn't the only person to "come to work from a different direction every morning" during the 17 and 1800's) My family was multi-racial long be it became "en vogue." Does that mean that any time a cop stops me for doing 65 in a 35 zone, an illegal turn, or even J-walking, I can cry Racist and say "You're only picking on me because I'm either "a None of the Above" or an "all of the above"?" That's kinda silly.

Idiots abound, but the last time I checked, there was nothing in any of the law books making them either illegal, immoral, fattening, a health hazard, or an endangered species. I have personally experienced this type of lunacy . Just before I got out of the Marine Corps, I was stopped going through a little Podunk town by a deputy with shotgun in hand. Evidently, the County Sheriff's daughter had been shacking up (that's what they called it in 1973) with a Marine and they had broken up. The Deputy was stopping anyone that looked like a Marine looking for "Pots and Pan" in the trunk and suggesting that he was looking for a rapist. I didn't complain about being questioned for a few minutes and released because this nut case had a shotgun in the bend of his elbow and the Safety was OFF. I was just damned glad to put that place behind me and never look back! You see, it doesn't matter if you are merely "Green". If "Green" is what they are looking for, you can be profiled by someone and the law misapplied. Until we replace humans with something else, get used to it.

Barney Pfief and his relatives are alive and well and living all over the country; not just in Mayberry (In fact, I am fairly certain that one of his cousins lives and works in the south of France). But you just can't fail to enforce EVERY law because someone MIGHT do something wrong. If someone violates the law, punish the hell out of him. Not just to show them the error of their ways, but put the "fear of God" in everyone around him. (There can be justification for a Tactical Nuclear Response under the right circumstances; Especially in the case of idiot deputies!)

But, conversely, enforcing no laws because one MIGHT be misused will be far worse; you should be painfully aware yourself. Anarchy is a really ugly thing. Just look at Mogadishu, Kabul, or Kandahar today, or the Balkans 15 or 20 years ago. I learned to shoot in the Marine Corps 40+ years ago and I was VERY good at it. I had hoped that I wouldn't live long enough to have to rely on THAT particular skill set ever again. If we just fail to enforce all laws because they might be abused, then I may need to start practicing once more because things are going to get ugly. Is that what you want?

AfghanWarVet --- You, as well as all other detractors, have yet to provide legal documentation to support your claims that SB-1070 is racist and illegal.

As you rambled through 5.38 and 5.39, you used the word "if" and other suppositions many times. That, to me, is assumption, and blatant avoidance- not answering specific questions.

I have a deep respect for those who have served (and serve) in our Armed Forces. So, if you're a real US vet, you have my deepest gratitude, and I greatly appreciate your selflessness. However, on a basic American-to-American, I find it very disheartening that you continue to deflect and refuse to directly answer questions posed to you and refuse to back up your claims with factual data.

I'd be happy to discuss this topic with you further, but your main interest at this point seems to be to dodge specific on-topic questions through proposing your personal off-topic segregation questions. It's very difficult to have an adult, rational discussion with someone who never answers my questions with facts.

actually NJ, I did, you chose to ignore it because you disagreed with it.

I did not avoid your question, I answered it very specifically, and because you ignored it I will answer it again. this time in bold caps so hopefully this time you will see it. are you ready?

SB-1070 DOES NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFIC WORDS THAT ALLUDE TO RACISM. So no I cannot provide you a specific link to the section of the law that says "every law enforcement official must discriminate against population X' ."

SB-1070 DOES HAVE CERTAIN VAGUE ELEMENTS THAT WILL PROTECT RACIST PEOPLE IF THEY DECIDE TO HARASS CERTAIN LEGAL CITIZENS. If it will make your link happy-brain feel better, I can provide you links to laws that have been repealed because they did cause or allow racism, WITHOUT spelling out those specific words, however I wont bother, as you will discount them as rambling and not relevant.

I will provide one modern day example how ever, simply because I am a glutton for punishment.

In 1998 The State of Indiana passed a law allowing officers to pull you over to check if you were wearing a seat-belt. The law was decent in spirit, and was designed to uphold and allow enforcement of a specific law already on the books.

Within 6 months the law was repealed amid a firestorm of law-suits, harassment, and discrimination claims. Turns out when you give officers free license to stop whoever they want, whenever they want, they tend to gravitate towards certain elements of society that they don't like or that they have a specific crime problem with.

IF AZ WOULD REWORD ONE OR TO LINES TO ELIMINATE THIS I WILL BE THE FIRST IN LINE TO DEMONSTRATE IN SUPPORT OF IT.

You imply that because segregation was long ago it is not factual. but it is. IT HAPPENED. Nothing in those laws SPELLED out racism word for word. But even you cannot deny the impact they had were extremely racial.

I provided you very specific historical data on how vaguely worded law is easily abused. It has happened before, and can easily happen again unless we as Americans do not watch vigilantly over our government.

You chose to discard my argument because you disagree with it. No more, No less.

I saw no data or facts. You've only made assumptions. But, do enlighten me as to where I can find your "facts" and website verifications.

Oh, and for the record, IF does not imply assumption. For example: IF you stick your finger in a light socket, you can get shocked. That is not assumption, that is common sense.

And one more thing, your snide little implication that am not actually a veteran did not go unnoticed, but I fail to see what my service record has to do with this thread.

PFC Emmett L. Thomas

US Army (Hon)

AWV, humor me and provide a link to the court case or cases involving racial profiling (or even as an excuse to target people based upon criminal propensity) associated with Indiana's seat belt law. As a help to you in your research, Indiana's seat belt law is contained in IC 9-19-10.

I did some more reasearch about the seat belt law and found something interesting. The was being abused thus. an officer would pull you over, and if you were not wearing a seatbelt, the officer could search you car, based on another statute that allowed officers to search a vehicle used in the commission of a crime,(I.E. seat belt violation.) So officers began targetting certain (minority) segments of the population.

The law was reworded and reinstated, to put a stop to the harassment.

By changing the law so that you can be stopped to check for seatbelt, but the officer can not ask any questions pertaining to anything other than immediate saftey or the seat bealt violation, officers could no longer search your car simply for not wearing a seatbelt.

here is a link to a couple of cases that demonstrate the later use of the law. I could not find instances of the previous law and its abuse due to the time passed, I assume. however I was one of the people personally abused by the previous law, so let me assure you this is not based on assumption.

http://www.theindianalawyer.com/article?articleId=22582

here is another:

http://www.theindianalawyer.com/article?articleId=24080

A search on that site returned 77 queries. Are satisfied, or shall I post 75 more?

I am fully aware of the law and its evolution. You stated that the law was repealed (never happened) amid a firestorm of lawsuits, harrassment and discrimination complaints. I simply asked that you back that statement up and produce the lawsuits and complaints. You have not done so.

Your entire point was that laws may lead to racial profiling, if I have read your post (and others from you) correctly, and that this was an example of that occurrence. I simply am inquiring into the basis for your assertion.