Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 1

There has been a great outcry in the press and on the internet about the terrible new anti-illegal immigrant law signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010.  The sad reality is that very few people on both sides of the issue have actually read the new law, but their ignorance of the law does not stop them from making statements about  it.

This post is part 1 of 5 posts that contain the entire text of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, (aka SB 1070) as as revised by House Bill 2162 (aka HB 2162) on April 30, 2010.  The new illegal immigration law / anti-immigrant law becomes law on July 29, 2010.   Deletions to text made by HB 2162 are show in red text that is lined out and new language is this color and underlined.

The other four posts found are here:

The first thing the new law does is require that all state and local agencies and personnel refrain from not enforcing EXISTING federal laws.  A number of elected and non-elected Arizona government officials have made the decision without any legal basis to not enforce existing immigration laws.  The question now becomes will these same people ignore the new Arizona law?

One of the most controversial provisions of the new law is the requirement that people must prove they are legally in the U.S. when asked by a police officer.  For most people, they can prove legal status merely by showing the officer a valid Arizona driver’s license, a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, a valid  Arizona nonoperating identification license or any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

Text of New Arizona Revised Statutes Section 11-1051 (effective 90 days after the end of the current Arizona legislative session).

A.  No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

B.  For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.  Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.  The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).  A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.  A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1.  A valid Arizona driver license.
2.  A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3.  A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4.  If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

C.  If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation that is imposed, the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection shall be immediately notified.

D.  Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.  a law enforcement agency shall obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States to a point of transfer that is outside of this state.

E.  In the implementation of this section, an alien’s immigration status may be determined by:

1.  A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
2.  The United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code
section 1373(c).

FE.  Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:

1.  Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.
2.  Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.
3.  If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.
4.  Pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373 and 8 United States Code section 1644.

GF.  This section does not implement, authorize or establish and shall not be construed to implement, authorize or establish the REAL ID act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302), including the use of a radio frequency identification chip.

HG.  A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws including 8 United States Code sections 1373 and 1644, to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.  If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand five hundred dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.

IH.  A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection G of this section and remit the civil penalty to the state treasurer for deposit in the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund established by section 41‑1724

[KEYTLaw Comment:  This section is part of the new law and reads as follows:  41-1724.  Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund. The gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund is established consisting of monies deposited pursuant to section 11‑1051 and monies appropriated by the legislature.  The department shall administer the fund.  Monies in the fund are subject to legislative appropriation and shall be used for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration.].

JI.  The court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in a proceeding brought pursuant to this section.

KJ.  Except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith, a law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer’s agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section in which the officer may be a defendant by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency.

LK.  This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

2017-09-03T11:04:18+00:00

248 Comments

  1. Marc April 25, 2010 at 10:48 am

    While you unfortunately are correct about our polity’s inexcusable failure to review primary sources before opining on government (in)action, the fact of the matter is that the law is virtually a hornbook example of how to write a constitutionally defective statute. Additionally, there is case law supporting the right NOT to have ID. Any civil liberties group wanting to make a mockery of AZ need NLT food the state with “suspicious” looking legal Hispanics not carry ID and then file suit over the ensuing arrests. The state would face millions in judgments which surely will further tank the state’s budget.

    • Bob May 16, 2010 at 12:32 pm

      Hey Marc (Apr 25, 2010 at 10:48 am),

      You said, “…there is case law supporting the right NOT to have ID.”

      There are two flaws in your logic.

      First, who would not want carry an ID? (Answer: someone who cannot otherwise obtain one). I had to present my ID at my bank yesterday when I cashed my paycheck. Although they know me on a first name basis, they still have to ask for it. (Hello?) The day before, I had to present my ID when I picked up my loaded trailer to haul to Houston.

      Second: So tell me, Marc, which states allow you to drive a motor vehicle on the highways without an ID? Let me answer that for you: NONE! Driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege, granted by the individual states, and when a judge suspends somebody’s license, they always say, “…and your driving privilege will be suspended for a period of…” Keywords: “DRIVING PRIVILEGE”, and NOT “right to drive”…

      So, tell me Marc, when somebody who is stopped in Arizona for speeding or has a burned-out taillight (verbatim quote of Section 1 B: “…any LAWFUL stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official…”), are you saying that they should refuse to hand over their license when the cop asks for it, citing some bizarre legal arguments? You’re delusional, dude…

      Does your interpretation mean that I can actually drive my Big Rig without my CDL in my wallet? Does your interpretation mean that I do not have to present it when I get pulled in for an inspection at the state’s weigh stations? Yeah, right…

      You must be yet another in a long line of people who have not actually read this bill. The police CANNOT pull somebody over solely to check immigration status. They driver must first break another law before they can be pulled over.

      Come on back to Earth…

      • Thomas June 3, 2010 at 12:03 pm

        I think I feel sorry for this Bob guy. He must have aten stupidy with a spoon on a daily basis during his time to ‘mature’

        I am glad that 75% of Americans support Arizona and that it will spread to every state. PS. I am an immigrant distinct differenc though LEGALLY!!

        • Bob June 3, 2010 at 7:27 pm

          @ Thomas,

          aten? Is that a new word? (past tense of “ate”?) Probably just a typo…

          “I am glad that 75% of Americans support Arizona and that it will spread to every state.”

          I am glad, too, and I hope it will spread to every state. Ultimately, I am hoping the government will get off their behinds and enforce our border laws. I’m confused as to your point…

          I don’t need your sympathy. What I do need is for these illegal invaders (yes, 20 MILLION people swamping our borders is considered an invasion…) to go back home and immigrate the right way and quit ignoring our laws. If you get busted at the southern border coming into Mexico, guess what? You do 2 years hard time in the one of the most corrupt prison systems in the world. Here, they are put on a bus (unless they’ve committed some sort of major crime) and the are sent home. Do you think we should adopt Mexico’s immigration laws, perhaps?

          What’s your solution to the problem? I’m anxious to hear it, and don’t bother with that amnesty thing because that is simply rewarding illegal behavior.

          If these folks want to work, then great- they can apply for a green card. That’s what our law requires and that’s what they need to do.

          My wife and her family did it the right way over 40 years ago. These folks can, too. I am not anti-immigration. I am anti-ILLEGAL immigration.

          Big difference. Save your sympathy for someone who needs it.

      • John K. July 8, 2010 at 12:26 pm

        Bob:

        This is not about why someone would choose to exercise their constitutional right not to carry I.D., but whether that right exists, and it clearly does. Perhaps you must present your I.D. to use discretionary services like a bank, a bar, a car, a truck, etc. All of your examples are of situations where the government or a private institution is allowing you the privilege (your word, and I agree) to use their services. However, this law punishes people simply engaged in walking down the street, which is a constitutional right (NOT a privilege like your examples) and looking suspicious who happen not to have I.D. Now, if you are walking down the street and happen to have the misfortune of being stopped by the police for whatever reason (perhaps a valid one, perhaps not) and then have this added burden of needing to have I.D. to avoid possibly spending unwarranted time in a jail cell is blatantly unconstitutional.

    • Bob May 16, 2010 at 2:04 pm

      Marc,

      You said, “there is case law supporting the right NOT to have ID.”

      Exactly how many states have validated case law which will allow a person to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway without being in possession of a valid driver’s license? (Answer-zero) You’re delusional…

      I would like to see the end results of telling the cop who pulls somebody over and the person subsequently tells him, “I do not need to show you my ID”.

      I’ve had to show my ID 5 times this week alone. (1) Cashed my paycheck at the bank and had to show it, even though they know me on a first-name basis. (2) presented it to pick up my pre-loaded trailer at the shipper before I could take it to Houston, (3) had to show it to simply RENT A DVD, (4) had to show it ti cash a Comchek at the truckstop yesterday, (5) had to show it at a state weigh station prior to having my truck inspected by the State weighmaster.

      Seems to me the only person(s) who do not have a valid ID are the ones who cannot legally obtain one. Hmmm…

      Also, I am confused when you said, ‘ “suspicious” looking legal Hispanics not carry ID and then file suit over the ensuing arrests’

      If this were actually happening, there would be liberal news media reporters drooling all over a case such as that. It would be the lead story on CNN! Al Sharpton an his bunch would fly out to talk to the cameras, Jesse Jackson would form a protest march, ACLU would be outraged, and the whole rest of the bunch… Funny, but I haven’t seen any of these cases in the news recently. Maybe the Communist News Network decided not to run stories about these poor, “picked-on” people who broke the law when they crossed the border illegally. Or, could it be (*gasp*) that it’s not actually happening like the drive-by media leads everyone to believe? Surely not… They are illegally invading our country in droves.

      The law clearly states in Section 1, Part B:, “For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official…”

      A lawful stop would mean speeding, drunk driving, burned-out tail lamps, expired registration, etc. Section 1, Part B specifically does NOT allow pulling somebody over for being a “suspicious-looking legal Hispanic”.

      By contrast, Federal law DOES ALLOW Border Patrol agents to inquire a person’s legal residency without probable cause. I run into this situation about once or twice a week. It’s called a “Border Patrol checkpoint”. This Federal law is much stronger than the Arizona law. Maybe you should sue the Border patrol and leave Arizona alone.

      • Barry May 17, 2010 at 8:29 am

        Bob –

        If anyone is delusional here, it is you.

        You are mixing up a driver’s license with an ID. Not everybody has or needs a drivers license.

        You are assuming that all “LAWFUL stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official…” result from a driving infraction.

        Yes, if a stop does result from a driving infraction, then sure, you need to present a driver’s license. That the driver’s license happens to double as an ID is immaterial and coincidental to the reason you hand it over. It is not to prove who you are, but that you in fact have a valid license, because as you said correctly, driving is a privilege granted by the State, not a right.

        – You are mixing up the fundamental principle that in our country, unlike most others, the government only has powers granted to it by the people. We are not subjects of the government, we are free citizens who govern ourselves. Do you understand the difference?

        – Before you say “Well, then, AZ citizens freely chose via the government to impose this on people”, consider that not everyone in AZ is a citizen of AZ, even if they are citizens of the US. AZ has no right to impose ID requirements on citizens of other states who might be passing through, that would need to happen at the Federal level. It is tantamount to requiring an internal passport or visa to travel to Arizona. It might get checked only if you get arrested or stopped or even contacted lawfully by a police officer (which as noted above does not require a vehicle or driving), but it is still a requirement imposed on lawful citizens of the US that does not presently exist, nor has it ever.

        – I have noted above in this thread, and no one has refuted me, that the law, which I have read, in Section B, paragraph 2, allows the police to hold anyone arrested, citizen or not, until they produce citizenship papers. This is also revolutionary, as it takes the decision for bail out of the hands of the courts and places it with local police instead. In addition, there is no limit on how long someone can be held by local officials in this manner, which raises serious habeus corpus issues.

        You ask “Who doesn’t carry ID”

        Well, children for one. Anyone who has lost their wallet. Anyone who is not carrying their wallet. Anyone who doesn’t feel like carrying their wallet. Anyone sleeping without their wallet on them.

        Police can and do routinely “LAWFUL[ly] stop, detention or arrest” in these situations, and plenty more readers can think of for themselves.

        All in all, there are many serious Constitutional issues. While I understand the right of the people of AZ to govern themselves, they still must do it in the framework of the Constitution and the rights we are all afforded.

        AZ can no more ask US citizens to provide citizenship ID to police in order to get out of jail (or stay out of jail) than they (AZ government) can declare ware on Mexico. It simply isn’t within their prerogative to do so.

        • Bob May 17, 2010 at 10:08 am

          “AZ has no right to impose ID requirements on citizens of other states who might be passing through”

          Well let’s see. Passing through…

          By car? They should have a driver’s license in order to drive. Passengers will not be required to present an ID without probable cause to suspect a crime (open container, etc.)

          By train? Sorry, but you need to present your ID when you pickup your boarding ticket.

          By plane?. Sorry, but TSA requires a photo ID to board a plane.

          Walking (across Arizona…?) Unless they are breaking the law (say, like walking on the shoulder of a rural freeway), they will not be asked for an ID. If they ARE walking down the freeway, then the police are within the law to ask for an ID because the person has broken the law.

          …”it is still a requirement imposed on lawful citizens of the US that does not presently exist, nor has it ever”
          Pretty-much every state in the country has some form of ID requirements in order to travel. Motels ask for an ID before they rent a room to you. Blockbuster asks for an ID to rent a dog-gone DVD. Banks ask for an ID to cash a check. I could go on and on. Unless somebody lives in a cave, they will have SOME form of an ID, but not necessarily an Driver’s license. It could be a school ID, a work ID (remember employers must see proof of residency to work here as per Fed law), or a passport if they are from another country.

          “…allows the police to hold anyone arrested, citizen or not, until they produce citizenship papers.”

          Like I said, anybody who is arrested must undergo a verification of ID, usually by comparing fingerprints. This is to ensure that the person being held is not wanted by Interpol, the Mexican (or any other foreign) Government, or has an outstanding warrant from another Law Enforcement agency within the US. This is commonplace when ANYONE is arrested. Many times, the person arrested will give an alias. You know that, and I know that…

          I don’t know why you continue to use the word “papers”, when a simple ID will suffice. Papers has a Nazi sound to it, which is not the case here. In Nazi Germany (for one) people were trying to leave the country. Here, they are trying to break our law and sneak-in by not respecting our sovereignty. (Try sneaking into Mexico and see how you are treated…) Secondly, people who did not produce “papers” could have been (and some were…) shot. We, on the other hand, do not randomly execute people who do not produce “papers.”

          “Well, children for one.” Are they by themselves? Where are their parents? If they are by themselves, they can easily carry their school ID. Since proof of residency is required to enroll in school, a school ID will suffice. (Notice I didn’t say proof of citizenship- I said proof of residency.) If they are not painting graffiti on walls or breaking some other law, they will not be approached by a LEO asked for an ID. If they ARE breaking the law, then parents will be called (as they should be…) and the parents can bring the kid’s school ID or other ID down.

          “Anyone who has lost their wallet.” Temporary IDs are available at any DMV office for the price of a 12-pack of beer. If they are not breaking a law, they will not be asked for an ID and should not have to worry about it. Sometimes I do not carry my ID when I go swimming and my wife is driving. If they are detained because of an infraction, a simple call to their spouse or parent will clear anything up and they will be released.

          “Anyone who is not carrying their wallet.” Same as above.

          “Anyone who doesn’t feel like carrying their wallet.” Same as above. Don’t break the law, no ID needed…

          “Anyone sleeping without their wallet on them.” OK, if they are sleeping on a park bench, then they are breaking the law and will be asked for an ID. If they are sleeping in their home, then they will NOT be awakened and asked to present an ID to a LEO standing at their front door. *sheesh* You are grasping at straws here… Police here do not randomly raid houses in the middle of the night to wake people up and ask them for an ID. I don’t know what country you are in, but that does not happen here unless you are a drug dealer and your house is being raided. But, then again, you have broken the law and are subject to the requirement to present an ID.

          By the way, I have been sleeping without my wallet on me for over 50 years and I have yet to be asked for an ID by a cop.

          Bob

          • Barry May 17, 2010 at 11:25 am

            The short answer is that you don’t seem to understand the difference between:

            – private transactions and interactions with government officials
            – law enforcement and the courts
            – presumed innocent or guilty when arrested

            and more, sucha s athe 4th and 5th Amendments and habeus corpus.

            Maybe in the future you could actually address these principles instead of whatever it is you are trying to say. Read on for more details. But in the end unless you get these fundamental principles of our liberty in your heart, you won’t understand the broader point I am making. Sorry to have to inform you of that, but it is true.

            And BTW, fantastic point about excusing Nazis the right to “keep people from trying to escape their country”, wrong though it is (see below), it represents a level of creativity I rarely see these days. I am sure pro-AZ law folks will be just thrilled to have the support of the “Nazis weren’t such bad guys” crowd!

            > By car? They should have a driver’s license in order to drive. Passengers will not be required to present an ID without probable cause to suspect a crime (open container, etc.)

            Right – people who would not otherwise need an ID are required to have one under this law. Thanks for making my point.

            > By train? Sorry, but you need to present your ID when you pickup your boarding ticket.

            But that doesn’t mean AZ has the right to check it. That is a Federal Law, and a controversial one at that (Patriot Act, etc.) Also note that, as you say it, you only need to present it to get the ticket, not to show it while on board.

            > By plane?. Sorry, but TSA requires a photo ID to board a plane.

            Again, you are mixing up Federal and State authorities. You might as well be arguing that because you need to show a DL when stopped for speeding by LEO, that any gov’t official ought to be able to demand it at any time.

            > Walking (across Arizona…?) Unless they are breaking the law (say, like walking on the shoulder of a rural freeway), they will not be asked for an ID. If they ARE walking down the freeway, then the police are within the law to ask for an ID because the person has broken the law.

            I wonder if you are trying really hard to miss my point. My point is that if someone is arrested, lawfully, they can be held without limit and without recourse to to the courts under this law. Even if they are citizens, and even if they have but refuse to share a DL.

            None of your points even address this so far.

            > Pretty-much every state in the country has some form of ID requirements in order to travel.

            Pretty much not true.

            > Motels ask for an ID before they rent a room to you

            Depends on the motel, and that is a transaction between private actors, not government actors. Last I checked, the government does not run the hotels or motels in AZ. I stayed at a campground in AZ last summer for about a week, they didn’t ask for ID of everyone. Nor has a hotel or motel ever asked for ID of everyone in the group, if they ask at all.

            > Blockbuster asks for an ID to rent a dog-gone DVD. Banks ask for an ID to cash a check. I could go on and on.

            Yes you could, and in each case, those are transactions between private actors that either can walk away from. None of them risk being tossed in jail without access to the courts because you don’t have or won’t show ID. So try to stay on point here, OK?

            > Unless somebody lives in a cave, they will have SOME form of an ID, but not necessarily an Driver’s license.

            Really? My nieces don’t live in a cave, they are 9 and 12, and they don’t have ID, other than passports, which they don’t carry, for good reason. Kids that age get stopped in lawful contacts by police all the time, sometimes even arrested.

            If you disagree that children don’t generally carry ID, please be kind enough to point me to the office or agency in California (where I live) that is busy providing ID for children. I have lived here almost 20 years and I have never heard of it, nor have I heard that children generally have ID from birth as you seem to be asserting, in this state or any other. Including Arizona.

            > It could be a school ID, a work ID (remember employers must see proof of residency to work here as per Fed law), or a passport if they are from another country.

            You are dreaming. Except for a passport, those are not allowed as ID under the law. And as a citizen, I certainly do not need to carry my passport with me or even to have one at all.

            > Like I said, anybody who is arrested must undergo a verification of ID, usually by comparing fingerprints.

            Even if true, ID and citizenship status are not the same thing, otherwise this law would not be needed. This law concerns citizenship status, not ID. It also applies to more than just people who have been arrested, as others have explained.

            > I don’t know why you continue to use the word “papers”, when a simple ID will suffice.

            That is what is meant by “papers” – to show the documents that are sufficient.

            > Papers has a Nazi sound to it, which is not the case here. In Nazi Germany (for one) people were trying to leave the country.

            LOL now you are going to regale us with your knowledge of history? Perhaps you are not aware of it, but the Germans overran a number of countries large and small and governed them for a while, preventing people from moving about and associating freely, in part by imposing restrictions on who can be where without demonstrating to government officials (and generally low level ones) the proper “papers”. And maybe you are not aware of how many people were forced to wear their affiliations on their outer clothing or have it tattooed on their arms to save the local officials the trouble of counterfeits.

            > Try sneaking into Mexico and see how you are treated…

            I have been to Mexico. They don’t ask for anything, they are happy to have us. I only need my passport on trips to Mexico to satisfy US officials, I never have seen a Mexican official who cares.

            > Secondly, people who did not produce “papers” could have been (and some were…) shot. We, on the other hand, do not randomly execute people who do not produce “papers.”

            This law is not random, and it would imprison them indefintiely without recourse to the courts until they do produce papers, and the best argument you have is “at least we don’t shoot them while we have them”? Great, what a patriot you are!

            > If they are not breaking a law,

            You use this or similar phrases several times, it makes me wonder if you understand the distinction between law enforcement and the courts? Do you understand that we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and no officer can determine on his or her own if we are breaking a law, but can only be a witness in a proceeding before the court?

            Maybe this is the part we need to work on for you? Because understanding it is at the heart of my claim that the law allows the police to hold you without recourse to the courts. If you don’t understand the difference, then you will miss my point for sure! Which you have!

            > “Anyone who doesn’t feel like carrying their wallet.” Same as above. Don’t break the law, no ID needed…

            I have personally been stopped by officers in a non-lawbreaking operation and asked for ID. Because my local cops have a reputation for brutality, and I have been outspoken about it, and this was a remote area, and I was not breaking the law, I decided that discretion was the better part of valor and I shared it. They agreed when they heard why I was there that I was not breaking the law and that was the end of it. Are you suggesting that they should not have asked me for ID?

            > If they are sleeping in their home, then they will NOT be awakened and asked to present an ID to a LEO standing at their front door.

            I wasn’t there, but I am pretty sure no one stopped to politely or otherwise ask for ID here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100517/ap_on_re_us/us_police_search_girl_killed_7

            > Police here do not randomly raid houses in the middle of the night to wake people up and ask them for an ID

            Oh,but they do, all the time. The police are not the courts. Get that through your head.

            > I don’t know what country you are in, but that does not happen here unless you are a drug dealer and your house is being raided.

            I am in the US, and what happened in the Detroit article above happened to an ex-gf of mine in Baltimore too. She was sleeping with her newborn when a similar raid occurred in her new apartment. The warrant was for whoever used to live there (she was there several months at that point). Fortunately no one was hurt in that case, but let’s not pretend it doesn’t happen all the time.

            > By the way, I have been sleeping without my wallet on me for over 50 years and I have yet to be asked for an ID by a cop.

            Right. But the point is, if you are arrested lawfully while you sleep, and it happens, and you are separated from your ID, you won’t have it with you when you want it, and then you are at the mercy of LEO instead of the courts.

          • Bob May 17, 2010 at 10:42 pm

            So, in essence, your beef isn’t with Arizona? You actually directing your outrage towards the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol! I see now… That’s who determines the legal residency status, not the Arizona LEOs. The AZ law actually prohibits them from doing so, and it’st right here in Section 3, Part B:

            IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION
            37 STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED BY:
            38 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
            39 GOVERNMENT
            TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
            40 2. THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED
            41 STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
            42 1373(c).

            I guess, since it is literally in black-and-white, that it means only ICE and sworn Fed officials can determine immigration status. How did you somehow convert that phrase to delegate local AZ cops the job of determining status? This is in English, of which I am very fluent, and I just don’t see it written anywhere, did you? (Maybe it is invisible ink or something.)

            AZ cops are not authorized by the Feds to check status, and they won’t. If they did, ACLU lawsuits will abound, and I’m sure these local LEOs do not want Liberal media nutjob newspapers drooling over a civil case that would be leading the evening news. I simply don’t see the connection between AZ LEO infractions/citations/arrests and checking someone’s immigration status. Open my eyes for me, please…

            I would also like to direct your attention to Section 4, Part A of AZ’s new law:

            A. In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of
            12 willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the
            13 person is in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

            Wait a minute… Alien registration document? What the heck is that. Oh, wait! I know! It’s nicknamed “a green card”… Notice that the AZ law duplicates a 25 year-old Federal law? So, as I see it, your beef is with the Fed’s existing law and NOT Arizona’s? Sorry to be so repetitive…

            FYI–FEDERAL Code Section 1304(e). refers to the section that tells legal aliens who have a green card to carry it on their person. Hmmm… I guess if they don’t have it on their person, then they are actually breaking a 24 year-old FEDERAL law (*ahem, excuse me…*) Where was your outrage in 1986 when this took effect?

            Here’s 1304(e) for you to read. It’s a Federal law, not an AZ law.
            http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1304.html

            Read on…
            14 B. In the enforcement of this section, an alien’s immigration status
            15 may be determined by:
            16 1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal
            17 government
            to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
            18 2. The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the United
            19 States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section
            20 1373(c).

            Huh..? Wait a minute… Only ICE or sworn Fed officials can determine status? Hmm… No way! The way you were carrying on, I thought the Arizona cops were required to determine status.

            “…people who would not otherwise need an ID are required to have one under this law”

            Really? What section says that? I’ve read this law about 10 times now and I can’t find that phrase. If they are breaking the law, an officer is within his legal right to conduct a preliminary onsite investigation and to also ask who they are and to prove it during the course of the investigation. A citizen has a 5th Amendment right to not incriminate himself and he could just shut his mouth, but most people waive that right if they have nothing to hide. If they don’t present an ID, that is rather unusual and it would raise a reasonable suspicion in ANY cop’s mind. Reasonable suspicion is much different than beyond a reasonable doubt (the legal standard for a conviction), which can only be determined in a court of law.

            “fantastic point about excusing Nazis”
            “Nazis weren’t such bad guys”
            Don’t even go there. I did NOT excuse the Nazis, nor did I say that they “weren’t such bad guys”. I detest what they did! My mother, my uncle, and I never knew my grandfather because he was killed in a small French village on D-Day by a freaking Nazi when they were both very young kids. Don’t put words into my mouth that I never said! That statement is yours, not mine.

            My point was that the Nazis were a military state with martial/military law and summary courts. There were no elected representatives/judges once they started invading sovereign nations. My point was also that the Nazi’s military law required “papers” to be shown to a soldier, not a law enforcement officer who must appear in court. There IS A DIFFERENCE between martial law and civil law, which Nazi’s did not have.

            By train
            “But that doesn’t mean AZ has the right to check it.”

            That is correct-and they won’t check it. If they did, the ACLU would be all over it. If the passenger isn’t breaking the law, they won’t need to show it to anyone. If they step off the train and commit a crime, then they will need an ID once they are at the local jail awaiting arraignment. There will not be “Arizona train-raiders” who will be jumping onto trains to ask everyone for their ID. (Side note: Fed Border Patrol, however, routinely boards buses to check for this very thing–but they are NOT Arizona LEOs) *sheesh*. You are actually starting to sound paranoid.

            “My point is that if someone is arrested, lawfully, they can be held without limit and without recourse to to the courts under this law. Even if they are citizens, and even if they have but refuse to share a DL.”

            I just can’t locate that code you that are quoting that specifically says “WITHOUT LIMIT” and “WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE COURTS”. I just can’t find it… When a person is arrested inside the US, they are entitled to rights under the Constitution. This AZ law does not exclude those rights anywhere. I’ve searched and searched, but I cannot find a code anywhere in the AZ law that does not allow Constitutional rights to someone who as been arrested and turned over to ICE or Border patrol for an immigration status check. Please direct me to that code. Let me save you some time. If that code WAS in the law, it would be considered unconstitutional, and that portion of the law would be thrown out, although there is a severability in it, which as you know, means that the rest of the code would still be in effect.

            The closest thing I found refers to the Feds (NOT Arizona LEO) holding someone only until their status can determined. That has been an existing Federal Law for a long time. (So, once again, I take it that your outrage is directed at the Federal level and not the state of AZ…) “Until status can be determined” does not mean “without limit”, unless you can provide me with the code that states such. It usually takes a day or two if the person is being cooperative. That’s their choice. They can prove their status and be set free, or they choose to not cooperate by excersizing their 5th Amendment rights, and thus, will sit for a few extra days. Then again, that’s the same procedure for ANY accused criminal…

            It’s in Section B, Part B. It says:

            Any person who is arrested shall
            6 have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is
            7 released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal
            8 government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).

            Where did it say “without limit”? I didn’t see it and it’s in English, which we both, obviously, comprehend…

            Yes, I liked your history lesson. I am quite aware of what happened in Europe (more than you are probably know). I have visited the location where the farmhouse once stood where my grandfather was murdered by a Nazi soldier, and I have seen his headstone on French soil. I am not ignorant, so please do not portray me as such by insulting my intelligence. I have not personally attacked you, so please be civil and do not personally attack me. I deal with facts, not personal attacks. Don’t infer that I support Nazism in any way, shape,or form.

            Yes, we do not randomly shoot people who do not have proof of residency. By saying, “Great, what a patriot you are!”, I take that as a compliment because I am reinforcing the fact that we are a country of laws and we have justice for all in a court of law, not on the side of a road with a pistol to the head. That was my point, which you obviously didn’t see. If someone is arrested and subsequently detained until their status can be determined by the Feds, they will be given a fair trial, which is a right guaranteed to everyone by the Constitution, no matter what their immigration status is. If they are proven guilty of their crime and do not appeal (or exhaust their appeals), they will serve their sentence they earned when they broke our law(s), and then they will be deported. Do you somehow find that unconstitutional?

            If so, then I think you need to re-direct your outrage to the Feds, NOT Arizona, because all AZ did was copy the existing Federal law into a state law, except AZ is forbidden to check immigration status–that is only allowed by sworn Fed officers, ICE, and Border Patrol. It’s in black-and-white and written in proper English.

            I do not want to write another book (I’ve written 6 books already), so I will just check back to see if you want to reply. Consider this my last word, and I hope you call the current Homeland Security Administration and complain about their current immigration laws, because therein the real problem lies, and therein is where your anger should be directed.

            Bob

            P.S. I also live in California (San Fernando Valley), and if you are worried about your kids not having a school ID, then you can get one from the DMV for about 10 bucks, and they are good for 6 years. You will need proof of their legal residency to get one. Thus, it serves as valid “papers” in AZ. By the time it expires, they will be in high school and will have a school-issued ID. Since California requires proof of residency to enroll in school, their school ID will be accepted as valid “papers” in AZ, and they will no longer need a California ID. They will be safe and you won’t have to worry anymore.

            Here’s the link:
            http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#idcard

            Bob

          • Barry May 18, 2010 at 7:37 am

            > So, in essence, your beef isn’t with Arizona?

            No, my beef is entirely with Arizona. Otherwise, I would be discussiong other issues in other places on the internet. this discussion is about Arizona. I am focused in particular on new restrictions on US citizens that happen to get arrested in Arizona, as implemented in this law. If by now you don’t understand that, then what DO you understand?

            > How did you somehow convert that phrase to delegate local AZ cops the job of determining status?

            Even if what you say about ICE is true, local cops will still be the intermediaries to provide information to ICE and act on their results. They will site between the prisoner and the decision maker, and therefore have the power to delay.

            The reason the task is not delegated via the law directly to federal agents is because AZ has no authority to do so. They can only control their own officers, and those are the officers managing the prisoner.

            If you are alleging that AZ can control ICE or other Federal officers, than you are making the case that others are making, that AZ is attempting to control Federal jurisdiction via this law. That is not my focus, but certainly others have made this point. I didn’t expect you to be one of them though 🙂

            > If they did, ACLU lawsuits will abound, and I’m sure these local LEOs do not want Liberal media nutjob newspapers drooling over a civil case that would be leading the evening news

            Glad to see you are openminded and not prejudiced!

            > So, as I see it, your beef is with the Fed’s existing law and NOT Arizona’s? Sorry to be so repetitive..

            If that is how you see it, then you are not really r”reading for comprehension”. I have repeatedly stand my focus is on the effects of US citizens who happen to get arrested in Arizona. Can I be any clearer about that? I have not written about alien, legal or otherwise, at all.

            > Really? What section says that?

            Section B, sentence 2 imposes new requirements to prove citizenship on US citizens who are arrested in AZ. Note, before you bow a gasket, that even if existing law might require ID of some sort, that is not for the purpose of proving citizenship status, so this is a NEW requirement.

            > I’ve read this law about 10 times now and I can’t find that phrase

            Not surprising, even though I have pointed it out to you in Section B multiple times. Why do I bother?

            > If they don’t present an ID, that is rather unusual and it would raise a reasonable suspicion in ANY cop’s mind.

            Not true, as others have pointed out the Supreme Court rulings on that – you are not required to provide and ID simply because a cop asks for one, and therefore it is not suspicious to refuse. Any cop who acts otherwise is going to have a short career.

            > I detest what they did! My mother, my uncle, and I never knew my grandfather because he was killed in a small French village on D-Day by a freaking Nazi when they were both very young kids. Don’t put words into my mouth that I never said! That statement is yours, not mine.

            Yet you misstated or misunderstand what they did. Sorry for your family’s loss, but you are wrong about how they operated. They only tried to stop people from leaving Germany – pshaw! Shame on you!

            > My point was also that the Nazi’s military law required “papers” to be shown to a soldier, not a law enforcement officer who must appear in court. There IS A DIFFERENCE between martial law and civil law, which Nazi’s did not have.

            So in the US if terhe is not martial law, you are OK having to show “papers” to civil law enforcement instead of Nazi soldiers? LEO that makes decisions on your right to pass (out of a jail e.g.) that has previously always been the jurisdiction of the courts but now belongs to local law enforcement to implement as they see fit? You are OK with that? And you don’t see the parallel to Nazi soldiers asking for papers at all? Hmmm….

            > If the passenger isn’t breaking the law, they won’t need to show it to anyone.

            Wrong – people get arrested all the time without breaking the law – that is why we have courts, we are innocent until proven guilty. If the cops get to decide, we wouldn’t need courts.

            And anyone arrested, whether they broke the law or not (which won;t be decided until much later) needs to show papers to cops to leave prison, when prior to this law a court would release them on bail or self-recog. But no more, now it is up to the local officer’s discretion.

            > then they will need an ID once they are at the local jail awaiting arraignment

            And they will need it AFTER arraignment too. The law as written usurps the Court’s power to grant bail, because even if the Court grant’s bail, the local officers still must see the papers before the prisoner can leave. It is as plain as day, Section B, sentence 2.

            > You are actually starting to sound paranoid.

            To you maybe because you are misunderstanding everything I write. I am concerned with routine arrests that happen every day and always have, of US citizens in Arizona. Nothing more, nothing less. Just changes in the routine interactions with LEO and risks we have of getting arrested every day as we go about our business.

            > I just can’t locate that code you that are quoting that specifically says “WITHOUT LIMIT” and “WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE COURTS”. I just can’t find it..

            For the umpteenth time, Sectin B, sentence 2. I explained jsut above how that usurps the Courts powers. I thought it would be obvious, but I guess not.

            > Where did it say “without limit”? I didn’t see it and it’s in English, which we both, obviously, comprehend…

            Look at tit he other way – where is the limit specified? What happens if the person refuses to provide their status (which they never had to do before)? Even if the Court grant’s bail, they can not be released. Ever.

            > I am not ignorant,

            Are you sure? because you are certainly close-minded, not a good reader for comprehension, and quite possibly bigoted against those not like you or living the same life as you.

            > I deal with facts, not personal attacks. Don’t infer that I support Nazism in any way, shape,or form.

            Facts as you see them or as convenient to you perhaps. You said that Nazis only asked for papers for people trying to leave the country. Maybe it was a mistake, but you said it and have not corrected it.

            And you certainly have attacked “liberals”, ACLU, and others. We know your game. You can’t stand your freedom and would rather restrict it than share it and grow it for all.

            > I take that as a compliment because I am reinforcing the fact that we are a country of laws and we have justice for all in a court of law

            Unless you are a US citizen who happens to get arrested in AZ should this law go into affect, then the local police, possibly in conjunction with ICE or other Federal LEO, not the courts will decide when you leave or if you leave. I wasn’t taught that was how it worked in school, were you?

            > That was my point, which you obviously didn’t see.

            No, I understand that is your point completely. My point is that it is wrong, and I offered plenty of evidence. You offer no evidence, only wishes and dreams and platitudes to support your point. I agree that prior to this law, your point was generally valid, but after it, it will be strongly limited in AZ (and surely other states will rush to follow).

            > f someone is arrested and subsequently detained until their status can be determined by the Feds, they will be given a fair trial, which is a right guaranteed to everyone by the Constitution, no matter what their immigration status is

            Except for those pesky habeus corpus issues I brought up, and which you refuse to address (because you can’t) plus the police determining instead of the court, what the bail requirements are.

            > they will serve their sentence they earned when they broke our law(s), and then they will be deported. Do you somehow find that unconstitutional?

            Oh quite – for one thing I am only talking about US citizens. Why on earth would they be deported? Why would you find that acceptable in the least?

            > (I’ve written 6 books already)

            Really? I’d like to read those books! Care to share the titles?

            > They will be safe and you won’t have to worry anymore.

            So you acknowledge that unless people trek to DMV every six years for each kid starting at birth (which I am sure is soooo common – have you ever seen such an ID or met a kid that has one, let alone on him all the time?) then there “is no need to worry anymore”, which means without the ID, there is cause to worry.

            Thanks for proving my point again – people don’t have these IDs routinely for kids, kids don’t have them, kids get arrested, kids and parents alike ought to worry.

          • Bob May 19, 2010 at 4:45 am

            Barry, Barry, Barry,…
            I still think your beef is with the Feds, since they have always been the only ones who have had authority to detain illegal trespassers for as long as I can remember. It’s been in the Federal Code for decades, and still is Federal Code. AZ cannot legally detain the illegal invaders unless they have broken a state law, to which they will be placed in the holding cell in the jail pending an arraignment, which is the same treatment afforded any other accused criminal. At the arraignment, if the judge determines they might pose a flight risk, bail will be denied, as with any other common criminal.

            “So you acknowledge that unless people trek to DMV every six years for each kid starting at birth (which I am sure is soooo common – have you ever seen such an ID or met a kid that has one, let alone on him all the time?) then there “is no need to worry anymore”, which means without the ID, there is cause to worry.

            Thanks for proving my point again – people don’t have these IDs routinely for kids, kids don’t have them, kids get arrested, kids and parents alike ought to worry.”

            ==============
            I don’t know what point I proved for you, but you are certainly welcome. Actually, there is no need for the parents to worry, by the way…

            No, I don’t acknowledge obtaining a Calif ID as being the only way. Every single kid on my block has an ID. I am sure every single kid on your block has one, too. I’ve met several hundred of kids over the years who all have valid ID’s — good in all 50 states!

            Actually, if you have kids, you already have an ID for them. Each one of my 3 kids (2 of which are still alive) had one a few weeks after each one was born. It’s called a “Social Security Card”, (which happens to be on the list of approved ID’s) and you need one for your kids if you have ever filed personal Income Taxes because you have to list each of your kid’s SSN on your 1040 form. I merely offered the Calif ID card as another method of providing your kids an ID, since you seem to be so worried about them being arrested.

            If they ARE arrested, then they will only be detained by ICE (not AZ) if there is reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally. That’s what the law says. I am not going to cite the code because my eyes are becoming crossed from reading it so much lately. Trust me- it’s in there. If there is no reasonable suspicion, then no further investigation is performed, which is the exact same standard as a LEO performs during a routine roadside stop and the subsequent roadside preliminary investigation.

            If your kid is arrested and they can convince ICE that they are legal residents, then there should be no worry on your part, other than you might be worried about why they got arrested in the first place. Perhaps, if they spoke to the cops in perfect English, there would not be a reasonable doubt to their residency, since 99% of illegal immigrants who come from a southerly direction did not learn perfect English from birth like I presume your kids did.

            If somebody’s kid actually does get arrested, then the parents actually SHOULD be put through the little bit of inconvenience (in my opinion…) of having to shag their Kid’s ID down to the ICE detention center because they weren’t really being very good parents if their kids got arrested in the first place, now, were they?

            Like I said, I don’t know what point I proved to you, but you’re welcome.

            ====================
            ” then the local police, possibly in conjunction with ICE or other Federal LEO, not the courts will decide when you leave or if you leave.”

            Not in conjunction with ICE. That’s not what the law says. Local police are NOT involved in determining if someone gets released. ICE (Formerly Border Patrol) determines that, just as they have been doing foe the last, say 30 years or so. I still think your beef is with the Feds Were you outraged 2 decades ago when 8 USC section 1304 was made into law? Let me refresh your memory:

            8 USC 1304 (e):
            Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
            carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
            of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
            him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
            to comply
            with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
            a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
            not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
            both.

            If they don’t have it on them, they are breaking the law… as in current “FEDERAL” law…

            Outraged? This was passed in 1986… I guess that’s why you are so upset. It’s been locked up inside you for 24 years.

            Yes, I will address your habeas corpus concerns. If you are detained, our Constitution clearly states (14th Amendment) that if you are born here or are naturalized, you are a citizen of the US and also of the State where you live. In addition, as a Citizen, you will be afforded all rights under our Constitution.

            Also, if the accused remains in jail after their arrest, they must be brought before a judge for arraignment within 24-48 hours after arrest. The exact time limit varies though the SCOTUS now requires that if a person was arrested without a previously-issued warrant, they must be brought before a judge within 48 hours, so that a judge may determine whether there was probable cause for the arrest.
            http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/arraignment/

            Most immigration status inquiries performed by ICE (as I stress once again-NOT Arizona LEO)only take from 2-6 hours. I spend more time than that stuck in traffic every week. Occasionally, inquiries take up to 36 hours, still well-within the 48-hour limit. I think your anger should be directed at ICE, not AZ, because ICE are the ones holding them. But, then again, we all know how slow our Federal Government is (have you ever tried to deal with the VA?…)

            Finally:
            “Afterwards” Subtitle: How to deal with the loss of a child, (non-fiction), 162 pages
            “Random Act of Silence” (fictional tech-thriller a la Tom Clancy), 291 pages
            “No Way Out” (fictional crime/mystery), 340 pages
            “Take My Missile” (fictional futuristic war thriller a la Tom Clancy), 220 pages
            “Blastoff” (fictional sci-fi mystery), 411 pages
            “Meltdown” (fictional sci-fi tech-thriller), 388 pages so far- my current work

            Don’t bother running down to Barnes and Noble. They have not been published. They currently occupy space in my office, space on my hard drive, and space on some backup CD’s. I’ll make sure you are the first to know when they are, though. You’d probably like the last one.

            My first one deals with the loss of my beautiful 21 year-old daughter on Christmas Eve of ’04, and what it did to me, my late wife (she died in ’07), and my two other kids. It also deals with the 7 symptoms of grief: Anger, Denial, Guilt, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance, Healing. I am sure there will be an audience for this one once I decide to publish it (if someone will publish it…) I was going to call it “Death is a Noun”, but when I researched that name, it was already published. Bummer…

            Have a nice day. Thunderstorms here in Wichita today. Yech

          • Jeremy June 11, 2010 at 9:18 am

            Thank you Bob. After Ignorant people like Barry really get under my skin and if you watch the news there is a lot of them. I have spent 16 years of my life in the military both the Marine Corps and the US Army in defense of my nation and the freedom of it’s peoples. I did not join for Mexico or any other country, nor should my tax money go to the aid of people who cross our borders illegally. If AZ or any other state wants to pass this law I am all for it. I live in Texas and would love to have this same law made here as well if not a federal law.

          • Bob June 11, 2010 at 11:44 pm

            Jeremy,

            Thank you. His silence (lately) has been deafening…

            I think his paranoia finally got the best of him. Either that or his kids got arrested and he couldn’t find their legal ID– their social security card that he needs to have when he files his annual income taxes.

            Rock on.

            Bob

    • Eckhart June 8, 2010 at 8:43 pm

      To all of you,
      im sorry to have to interrupt this invigorating conversation but i need to know. I know this probably none of my business and you can say so but um….how many of you actually live in Arizona? If you don’t heres a nice little news flash for you, uh what you think of this law is irrelavant. If you dont like it oh well. We dont care how you feel about our choices they arent your problem are they?

  2. Paul April 26, 2010 at 6:03 am

    The first thing the new law does is require that all state and local agencies and personnel refrain from not enforcing EXISTING federal laws. A number of elected and non-elected Arizona government officials have made the decision without any legal basis to not enforce existing immigration laws.

    Where does the new law say this? The law very clearly states in the first paragraph:

    A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

    Second, the law is truthfully no different than the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8 of the United States Code). It is just codified and adopted into Arizona law. As such, the new law is clear that it is meant to compliment existing federal law and can survive judicial review. ( I have read both and can cite the federal source of each of Arizona’s statues.)

    Marc,

    Your statement regarding carrying ID is invalid. If an alien legal or otherwise is encountered and they are not carrying ID they are in fact in violation of federal law (8 USC 1304 (e) and subject to arrest. If the alien claims to be a US Citizen and they are proven not to be, they are in violation of 18 USC 911, false claim to US Citizenship (USC), and are thus barred from EVER BECOMING A US CITIZEN. Very few illegal aliens claim to be US Citizens for fear of the permanent bar. Additionally, the new law does not empower local law enforcement officer to determine a person’s legal status. It states a person must be empowered to do so by the Federal Government.

    The bottom line is this law does nothing more than adopt CURRENT federal law. A federal agent empowered to enforce Title 8 (the Immigration and Nationality Act) can stop any person who they have reasonable suspicion (1 or more articulable fact) to believe is an ALIEN (not just an illegal alien), and determine alienage. If they are determined to be an ALIEN (not just an illegal alien), they are REQUIRED by federal law ( 8 USC 1304(e)) to have in their possession documents proving their legal status (i.e. a passport with a valid visa or a lawful permanent resident card [I-551].) The statue is clear that race is not acceptable as the sole fact to base the suspicion on; however, the supreme court has held that race may be considered in conjunction with other facts (i.e. a person’s inability to speak English, lack of identification, providing false or misleading information pertaining to place of birth, etc.) when determining alienage. The law isn’t going to really have that big of an effect on legal aliens or USC and the majority of people complaining haven’t really read the statue or are completely blind on federal law. My two cents!

    Paul

  3. Packetguy April 26, 2010 at 8:34 am

    Paul,

    You’re a fool if you believe this law doesn’t give AZ LE liberty to infringe the rights of LEGAL citizens. It says “A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency”. This means that if someone DOES NOT provide this identification, the ARE presumed to be an alien. There is no “probable cause” required before LE can stop ANYONE and require they present this proof. The law only specifies “reasonable suspicion” as the standard for detention, and under the Terry Stop doctrine, LE may use force to detain you. The “reasonable suspicion” standard is easily achieved by any officer willing to lie about what they saw you do or heard you say. They need provide no actual evidence of a crime of any kind. In fact, “reasonable suspicion” attains if the officer thinks you MIGHT ABOUT TO commit a crime!

    If you can’t provide the require ID (we’ll get to that in a moment), you’re now automatically presumed to be an illegal alien, and LE can escalate its actions all the way to transporting you to a Federal detention facility, all without due process OF ANY KIND. No lawyer, no arrest, no nothing.

    Now, let’s talk about the ID requirement. Currently in the US LE cannot stop you out in public and simply demand that you “show your papers”. In fact, we’re entitled to just walk away from a police officer asking any question whatsoever, as long as we aren’t already being detained — and then we have the right to remain silent until we obtain counsel. This ID requirement goes far beyond simply identifying who you are by name and address — it’s PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP that is demanded.

    This law then makes it a requirement that everyone carry proof of citizenship on them at all times, even when just walking. That’s a historic infringement of personal liberty. Worse, the law is far too vague about what constitutes acceptable ID, beyond an AZ state ID. It permits only government-issued ID that itself required proof of citizenship to obtain. This excludes virtually all drivers licenses from other states, as few, if any, currently require proof of citizenship to get a DL. In CA, for example, you don’t need to be a citizen to get a DL. In fact, CA won’t accept its own DL for its own laws that require proof of citizenship (see http://tinyurl.com/citproof).

    I’m hard pressed to imagine what non-AZ state or federal ID I would normally carry on my person that would let me as a CA resident use to comply with this law. Short of a birth certificate, which is the generally accepted means of citizenship proof, no normally held ID — credit card, library card, military ID (non-citizens can be in the military), even a pilot’s license — requires proof of citizenship to obtain.

    Although the law is clearly defective, once it’s activated and until it’s overturned, every US citizen is subject to violation of civil liberties by LE. Just ask Steven Anderson (http://tinyurl.com/sanderson1).

    • Bruce Moore April 30, 2010 at 7:22 pm

      Packetguy is overlooking the fact that you don’t have to show ID unless they stop you in a “lawful contact” which means something other than race. Additional it prohibits the sole use of race. Packetguy’s whole argumument is based on being question by police unlawfully- expressly prohibited by this bill.

      If you are engaged in suspicous activity that gets you stopped, you have to show your driver’s license. It’s not a big deal, you have to show it when you by a beer at Chipoltle.

      • markbuster May 12, 2010 at 3:53 am

        You’re right on the money Bruce +1

        Packetguy is missing the point. The law doesn’t make it a requirement to carry proof of citizenship. If you break a law and you don’t have ID then the cops will take you to jail to determine your identification. They would do this no matter what. If you don’t carry your ID and you don’t break any laws guess what? The cops will never bother you (because they have no reason to). lol

        If they obviously can’t determine your identity then guess what you’re not a citizen! Or just maybe every single record of you was deleted magically prior to your arrest 1984 style. lol… I guess bums might have an issue with this… or gypsies? lol

        If you’re a tourist or something then you have to have a passport “somewhere” and a record of entry into the united states with a visa.

  4. Marc April 26, 2010 at 8:35 am

    No Paul, my point about ID is not invalid but I am talking about application of the law to citizens. Additionally, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Federal statute is problematic as well as citizens have been held by ICE in secret hidden facilities without access to counsel for months. One does not fix such matters by reiterating bad policy.

    As to the “non-discretion clause”, that is simply inane not to mention unenforceable.

    If Arizona wants to do something about illegal aliens, it should address it’s attention to the businesses that employ them (and I am not talking about raids but about cracking down on the intentional flaunting of federal law by the very people supporting this legislation.)

    • Bob May 16, 2010 at 12:52 pm

      Marc,
      “…held by ICE in secret hidden facilities”

      Really? Your proof is…?

      If they are “secret facilities, then how did you find out about them? I guess they are not so secret after all (IF they even exist…)

      I’ll be waiting right here for your non-existent proof… Patiently waiting…

      Oh, and you said, “…Arizona… should address it’s attention to the businesses that employ them”.

      Well, it is again apparent that you have not read the bill because that’s exactly what Section 6 A enforces (which, once again, duplicates Federal law). Read it… Here’s a full copy of the text:
      http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

      Scroll down to Section 6 and take a gander at it. You might learn something.

      This law does nothing more than copy EXISTING FEDERAL LAW into a state statute, with an additional State statute that prohibits inquiring about a subject’s legal residency status without probable cause, which differs from Federal Border patrol policy which ALLOWS inquiries about residency.

      In other words, Border Patrol can just walk up to you and ask if you are a legal US citizen. Heck, they do it all the time on the interstates in Border states. If you have ever been through a Border patrol checkpoint on I-10 or I-35 (I have been through hundreds of them because I drive a Big Rig), the first question the Border Patrol will ask is “Are you an American Citizen”.

      So sue Border Patrol for violating your civil rights- leave Arizona alone.

  5. Marc April 26, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Rather than compose a brief I have reviewed the wikipedia page on stops and as it does a reasonable job of discussing the matter suggest you review same, keeping in mind the circuit in which Arizona is situated as well as the deference paid to that circuit’s position (which is still controlling under the US SCt ruling as far as producing and documentation.)
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

  6. Barry April 26, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Paul – your claim that Marc’s claim is invalid, is well, invalid. This act requires an arrested person, citizen or not, legal immigrant or not, to produce papers proving the status before they are eligible for release. See Section B, sentence 2. As a citizen, I guess if I am ever arrested in Arizona (and I do spend time there), I guess I will be staying in prison until and unless the police determine my status on their own initiative without any cooperation from me. “Show me your papers and you can go home” Feh!

  7. Packetguy April 26, 2010 at 10:50 am

    “This act requires an arrested person, citizen or not, legal immigrant or not, to produce papers proving the status before they are eligible for release”

    Barry,

    It’s far, far worse than that. It requires that your produce those papers without even being arrested. Failure to produce the papers makes you automatically presumed to be an illegal alien, providing grounds for later arrest and transport away from where you were contacted UNTIL you can provide such proof.

    At first blush it seems like you must be arrested in order for the process to start:

    “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.”

    But because the law is so poorly written, the prior language puts the burden of proof on any citizen that LE has “reasonable suspicion” to demand ID from:

    “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official … reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien … a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person”

    Although the intention is to place a burden on LE to make such citizenship tests where they may have failed to in the past, the actual result of the language is to give LE _license_ to demand citizenship ID on mere “reasonable suspicion”. That weak legal standard has been widely documented as the single most abused doctrine in law enforcement — it requires ZERO EVIDENCE of a crime, since you can be suspected of being “about to commit a crime.” Worse, recent precedence has clarified this as being entirely in the mind of the LE officer, without regard to actual facts. All a policeman has to do is say he BELIEVED he had reasonable suspicion.

    • Barry May 17, 2010 at 8:44 am

      I realize that. I am focusing on the narrow case because it is easier to separate the emotion from the arguments on this specific case I would hope.

      Note I did not say this is the only thing wrong with the law, only the easiest to relate to by Joe Sixpack , his wife, and his kids.

  8. Paul April 26, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    Where to begin. First Packetguy, Your first argument is a mistaken reversal. Just because the law spells out exactly what type of documentation can be used to prove citizenship does not mean that a lack of it AUTOMATICALLY makes you illegal. That is a presumption on your part not the law! The law is in black and white. Second, I am very familiar with the concept of Terry stops and if you reread my earlier post you will see I clearly state that only reasonable suspicion is necessary to question a person about their alienage. WHICH IS THE CURRENT FEDERAL LAW, AS WELL.

    “If you can’t provide the require ID (we’ll get to that in a moment), you’re now automatically presumed to be an illegal alien, and LE can escalate its actions all the way to transporting you to a Federal detention facility, all without due process OF ANY KIND. No lawyer, no arrest, no nothing.”

    Read the law this is an out right LIE!

    Section 1051 D “Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility”
    The only place it evens talks about transporting an alien to a Federal detention facility.” The key is HAS RECEIVED VERIFICATION.

    Where does it say you have to carry proof of citizenship on you at all times? Federal law says if you are an ALIEN you have to carry ID on you at all times and proof of legal status! This law does nothing to change that requirement. Nor does it make the non-production of documents by a US Citizen a crime.

    As for your post, the LE were clearly within the law to question and search Steven Anderson’s car if like they say the dog alert to the presence of drugs or people. (a dog alert equals probable cause.) I don’t feel sorry for idiotic people who feel they are above the law and wish to start confrontation just because. I am sure Mr. Anderson will be found guilty and they world will keep on moving.

    Marc I am not sure where you are getting your information about ICE detention facilities. First by law ICE dentention facilities (all federal detention facilities) are not secret or hidden and must be disclosed to the public. Second, any person taken into an ICE facility is given a free phone within 8 hours of being processed normally closer to 2 hours. They are also given a list of free local attorneys and organizations that can assist them at no cost to them or the government. All aliens unless they waive the hearing will see an Immigration judge within 10 days of being arrested (Note even if arrested for administrative charges it is considered an administrative arrest and an administrative arrest warrant issued [Form I-200].) Now Marc while I do not disagree with you that US citizens have been arrested for being illegal, if you look it up it is exception not the rule. And you will not find any evidence to support the theory that some overwhelming amount have been arrested for being illegal. Now before someone writes something stupid like one person is one to many, think about how many innocent people have been sent to jail for crimes they didn’t commit. While, it is unfortunate, it would be fool hearted to think we should just stop arresting people or enforcing the law. Also, in relation to the employers the AZ Law provides FOUR full length sections dealing only with employers. They even require businesses to use E-verify, where an employer can validate the information given to them by a person on their I-9. This even protects the business if it is found later that they inadvertently hired an illegal while following all the procedures.

    Back to Packetguy, again you are lying to the world. The law does not require you, the person arrested, to produce anything about your immigration status before being released. The law says very clearly that JAILS must comply with 8 USC 1373 (C) which requires the federal government to confirm a persons legal status. This is normally done by contacting ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) via NLETS. This requires ICE to acknowledge the message within 20 mins and determine their legal status within 1 hour. Additionally, in lots of counties across the U.S., especially in AZ, ICE DRO officers are in the county jails and are able to verify a persons status in minutes.

    Also reasonable suspicion is based on actual facts. The facts are interpret not by what the officer believed but what a reasonable person in that situation, given the officers articulable facts would believe. Truthfully, the bottom line about what actions the officer takes is simple. Our legal system is not perfect. Every officer is not perfect nor is ever criminal going to get caught and go to jail for every crime they commit. Mistakes are going to be made, but I am a firm believer that while there are a few bad apples in law enforcement by far the majority are upstanding citizens who want to protect their families and communities. This outlandish theory that there is going to be a pandemic of police abuse is unfounded and completely outside of reality. The truth of the matter is simple, if the police wanted to abuse everybody’s rights they could do it now if they really wanted to. Also, do a Google search on how many people in the US are killed every day by illegal aliens, it ranges from 10 to 17 people a day. And of the 1 million illegals arrested last year, half were in Az. The people of Az have spoken they are fed up and I don’t feel sorry for the illegal aliens.

    • Michael May 1, 2010 at 2:41 pm

      Good job Paul. You have presented a clear and cogent understanding of the Arizona law. The truth of the matter is that many of those that object to the law want an open border and thereby no federal or state immigration law. I wish they would just be intelelctually honest about it. I belive the Mexican and other latino groups enrich our society and I am glad for those that are here legally. However, we are also a nation lf lawsand our government has a resposibility to enact and enforce immigration laws

  9. Packetguy April 26, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    Paul,

    While LE may question a person detained in a Terry stop, the person is not required to answer except in some states, where a person may have to verbally provide their name and date of birth. People do not have to present any papers (unless operating a motor vehicle), and do not have to answer any questions about their alienage. Thus you’re incorrect, the AZ statues is not already in Federal law.

    Regarding the limitation of transporting suspected illegals until “receiving verification”, I’m glad you brought this up. It’s another example of a giant slaughter of civil liberties by this law. First, what constitutes “verification”? The law doesn’t say. Who can verify that I’m not an illegal citizen? What agency? What database? I’m in LE Information Technology and I can assure you that there is no database or authority to contact to veryify that someone ‘is not” illegal. There aren’t even any that verify someone IS illegal! There are arrest and warrants databases, but those only include people already arrested and wanted for a prior crime. Under this law, you could be detained indefinitely.

    You ask “Where does it say you have to carry proof of citizenship on you at all times?” Right here:

    “A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following [list of valid IDs]”.

    So if you provide proof of citizenship (not merely ID if you’re not an AZ rezident) you’re presumed NOT to be an illegal alien. If you DON’T provide proof of citizenship, LE is by this very statement entitled to presume you ARE an illegal. You said “Nor does it make the non-production of documents by a US Citizen a crime.” It doesn’t have to make it a crime. It only has to give LE “reasonable suspicion” to detain and transport you until LE manages to somehow “receive verification.” Where is the presumption of innocence? Where is the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure? That sucking sound you hear is our Constitution going down a drain in Arizona.

    It’s too bad that you don’t see the injustice in the Steve Anderson case. Research it more thoroughly. Whatever you think of his religion or politics, it’s obvious that the Border Patrol fabricated all evidence to justify their criminal assault on a completely innocent US citizen. The BP found no drugs and the “dog alert” was a blatant excuse to trample Anderson; evidence shows they had him marked for assault.

    You may be happy with the insane beauracratic labryinth of USC 1373, but for an ordinary citizen to be subject ot this abuse (which you admit could leave an innocent person locked up for ten days) is certainly unreasonable.

    You say ” [LE is] able to verify a persons status in minutes.” Wrongo. What happens is that LE FAILS to find any other wants or warrants and thus can’t legally hold the suspect any longer. The AZ law changes that, because it requires “VERIFICATION OF THEIR STATUS” before release, which without further defintion means proof of citizenship. Under no other law in the US can LE hold someone until LE accomplishes some prerequisite research. Either charge them or let them go; that’s the law. There is absolutely no database available to any civilian LE agency with citizinship information in it.

    Your mocking of people who say “one innocent arrested is one too many” shows a fundamental ignorance of American jurisprudence, which is CENTERED on Blackstone’s formulation “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. In 99% of the cases where innocent people are convicted, is is because LE abused due process. The AZ law actually CODIFIES abuse of due process. It’s a death sentence to personal liberty.

    I am all for blocking illegal aliens at the border, and for deporting them when they are arrested for some other crime (such as illegal employment). I am adamantly opposed to giving up one scintilla of my own liberty to further the task of filtering illegals out of society.

  10. Marc April 26, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    Re ICE, you would have to be living in a cave not to have heard about the current fiasco over ICE detention facilities. See http://www.google.com/m/search?q=secret+ICE+facilities
    Paul,

    Re AZ law vs 9th Cir – AZ loses and US SCt already stated Nevada law survived only because it only required the detainee to speak his name

    Re potential litigation: As I said, if I were LaRasa I would flood border towns with seedy looking Hispanics without ID who hold positions as judges, lawyers, legislators as well as doctors, lawyers and other professionals and just hope that some zealous local cop arrests on the basis of no ID in possession. The ensuing class action suit will bankrupt Arizona

    I understand your bona fides, and if I thought you weren’t willing to consider other view points I would not have posted. But if you don’t understand the issues above, let alone the fact the criminal case law protects LE by acting to restrain the abuse that such laws engender as LE stretches to address criminal elements that is simply unfortunate. I’ve spent some 30 yrs in the practice of law and my opinion is that few member of the criminal bar or LE support this statute on its merits. This is political grand standing that puts real LE in a jam and assaults the civil liberties of all.

    And yes, the federal laws also need fixing, and hopefully the Party of No will stop trying to shut down Washington so that immigration laws can be adjusted. One way or the other, I don’t want to live inside walls. Frost was being sarcastic when he suggested that good fences make for good neighbors, though with health adopted the Canucks may stop fretting about all the illegal US citizens in Canada 😉

    Re

  11. Paul April 26, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    Packetguy,

    Again you’re lying! 8 USC 1304 clearly states :

    “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
    carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
    of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
    him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
    to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
    a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
    not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
    both.”

    Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, all agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or duly authorized local officers under 987 G program are empowered to conduct investigations into alienage. (Obviously you do not know much federal law.)

    There aren’t law enforcement databases that can tell you if a person is illegal? How about ENFORCE, Enforcement Alien Removal Module (EARM), CIS, CLAIMS, TECS and even NCIC keeps records of aliens who have been deported in abstentia and have outstanding warrants for removal. Are you really dumb enough to believe there are no records of who the US government deports? How do you think illegal aliens get A-files? Or better yet how do you think a person can be tried for illegal re-entry (8 USC 1326) which requires the government to prove the alien has been not only ordered removed but actually left the U.S? Any AND ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES CAN CALL ICE’S LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT CENTER (LESC) TO RECEIVE CITIZENSHIP INFORMATION 24 HOURS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK OR SEND AND NLETS MESSAGE, AS PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED TO YOU.

    Again read the law before attempting to quote it. The only people who are “transported” to a federal facility are those who have already been arrested and are in the custody of the arresting agency and the agency has received verification that they are illegal. Not if they encounter you on the street and can’t determine your alienage (which a regular officer on the street cannot do unless he is empowered under 987 g to do so.) Not if you are a USC whose SSN can be run and easily proven to be yours or can answer easy questions like where were you born? What high school did you go to? You would be surprised most illegal’s can’t answer questions like this.

    Nowhere does it say officers are going to be on the streets questioning everybody they see and transporting them anywhere nor does it give them the power to. This is just your misinformed interpretation of the little parts you have read and misunderstood!

    Additionally, I never said 8 USC 1373 would or could cause a US Citizen to be locked up for ten days. The two aren’t even in the same paragraph. And as far as holding someone beyond the time they would normally be in jail. Most of the time alienage is determined during the in processing of the criminal. If LESC determines that the criminal is an illegal alien or a legal alien that is now subject to removal because of his crime they will send a detainer to the local law enforcement agency telling them to detain the criminal alien after his sentence for placement in removal proceedings.

    I don’t know what law enforcement systems you work on but obliviously you don’t know much about what is out there. And relating to my understanding of American Jurisprudence, believe me I can assure you that I am not ignorant of it or of the law. What is funny is that you seem to blame law enforcement for everything that is wrong with the legal system (even though you supposedly work with law enforcement) even blaming them for 99% ( I am sure you have no statistical reference for that number) of the wrongful convictions. But since you have such a grasp on American Jurisprudence then you know that Law Enforcement officers don’t indict, convict or sentence anyone. Criminals are indicted and convicted by a jury of their peers and not a jury of police officers. And in case you were wondering, (since I doubt you are going to do the real research) the most common cause of wrongful conviction are because of false/mistaken identification by the victims. 75% of all convictions that have been overturn were based on this and have absolutely nothing to do with law enforcement.

    So, again read the law before quoting it and check your facts before stating them!

  12. Paul April 26, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    Marc,

    I have never said that the law is perfect or that the current federal laws were perfect either. I agree that we absolutely need Immigration reform. I will be the first to admitt most, if not all, things done by politicians are just for political grand standing with the rest of us left to debate their motives, as if they were noble or with purpose.

    Immigration law is one of the most complicated and complex sections of law out there (Also, one reason that I love it so.) However, I hate reading articles, blog or comments where people seemingly provide disinformation or state out right lies, as if they were fact (“99% of the cases where innocent people are convicted, is is because LE abused due process” or “I can assure you that there is no database or authority to contact to veryify that someone ‘is not” illegal. There aren’t even any that verify someone IS illegal!”)

    But Marc rest assured, I do see your point on state stop and identify laws relating to USC; however, my point is that Aliens legal or illegal are required to do so and I just have more confidence in LE that they are not going to run a muck arresting ever person in their sights.

    P.S. You and I both know that the 9th Circuit is overturned by the Supreme Court more than any other district and is definitely not a LE friendly circuit. I am curious to see the legal battle unfold.

    Paul

  13. Barry April 26, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    Paul –

    > my point is that Aliens legal or illegal are required to do so and I just have more confidence in LE that they are not going to run a muck arresting ever person in their sights.

    And now, in Arizona, anyone arrested, whether illegal or not, must prove their status under this law, in essence testifying against themselves, before they can leave. Before they are bailed out, before they are charged. Before they are entitled to a trial.

    If I were arrested in AZ, my first and last words would be “Lawyer please”. I recommend it for anyone else. Why should *I*, a natural born citizen from another state, bear the weight of the failure of AZ’s social policies? Why should *I* have to, in effect, testify that I am in fact a citizen under pain of indefinite imprisonment?

    Holding people because they refuse to present evidence that might or might not convict them is not the province of the police, it is the province of the courts subject to a proper hearing.

    And because of this, if not for many other reasons, I expect this law will fail on Habeus Corpus grounds.

  14. Barry April 27, 2010 at 5:19 am

    Barry,

    No where in the law does it say YOU a US Citizen will have to prove that you are a US Citizen. POINT BLANK. The law clearly places the burden of verifying and determining alienage on the government (Title 11 chapter 7). However, if you are an alien and are not in compliance with the federal law; which requires them to carry ID and proof of legal status on them, 8 USC 1304, (now adopted into Az law and explained in Title 13 chapter 15 Section 1509) you have now also committed an offense under Az law.

    Also, Barry your first and last words can be lawyer but when arrested the police are still permitted to ask you biographical information, like where are you from, SSN, DOB, current address and your name, as well as fingerprint you. All of which, can easily identify you and when provided to ICE determine if you are even an alien to start with. You all make seem as if it is some long complicated procedure to verify legal status, it is not. With the technology and databases today, an agent can query your entire life history with just your SSN.

    And where do you get this indefinite imprisonment from? If you are a US Citizen why do you think it is hard to verify who you are?

  15. Paul April 27, 2010 at 5:21 am

    Barry,

    My apologies, I accidentally typed your name on the last post. The above post is from me and not Barry.

    Paul

  16. Paul April 27, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Barry,

    No where in the law does it say YOU a US Citizen will have to prove that you are a US Citizen. POINT BLANK. The law clearly places the burden of verifying and determining alienage on the government (Title 11 chapter 7). However, if you are an alien and are not in compliance with the federal law; which requires them to carry ID and proof of legal status on them, 8 USC 1304, (now adopted into Az law and explained in Title 13 chapter 15 Section 1509) you have now also committed an offense under Az law.

    Also, Barry your first and last words can be lawyer but when arrested the police are still permitted to ask you biographical information, like where are you from, SSN, DOB, current address and your name, as well as fingerprint you. All of which, can easily identify you and when provided to ICE determine if you are even an alien to start with. You all make seem as if it is some long complicated procedure to verify legal status, it is not. With the technology and databases today, an agent can query your entire life history with just your SSN.

    And where do you get this indefinite imprisonment from? If you are a US Citizen why do you think it is hard to verify who you are?

  17. Victor Ganderson April 27, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Paul is exactly right, the Arizona lawmakers/lawyers, specifically made sure the bill/law was a reinforcement to the federal law. Knowing that liberals would, try to attack the law stating “racial profiling” and 8th and 14th amendment violations. They out smarted the the liberals, by writing it this way. Many of the Republicans in Az. strongly believe in the Constitution, and that is also why they were specific in not trying to supersede the Fed Law, but replicate it.

    • Charles May 9, 2010 at 8:39 pm

      “E. 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.”

      I am willing to accept the majority of the law as is accept the above passage. It could lead to the harrassment and possible infringement of rights of legal US citizens.

      • Andy May 19, 2010 at 9:13 am

        Charles,

        Where are you copying that quote from. What section is it in. If this is from a federal statute, please provide the statute, as this is not in the AZ law

  18. Marc April 27, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Well, so much for an informed discussion….

    Victor, I am a registered Republican. You however make my case about political grandstanding and the disservice that does all of us. The statute is bad policy, will undoubtedly be struck down by a Court if anything left of the Ct that narrowly allowed a less invasive Nevada law, threatens to put the people of AZ behind lawsuits with huge financial implications, not to mention the bit authorizing suits against LE. This was a publicity stunt; it serves only to further polarize our polity. Moreover, illegal aliens working under assumed SS# are pumping money into the treasury which in a very real sense is being paid out to the retired whiners in AZ receiving SS benefits 😉

    Why didn’t AZ tighten up controls on employment where it’s efforts might have proven useful, or even appropriate? Because these aliens are of course employed by those making all the fuss.

    To be honest, our organic documents reflect the fear our founding fathers had of the unwashed. Even Jefferson finally admitted that his belief in revolution was misplaced. And our national focus on education stems in part from enfranchisement. Unfortunately, the US is failing in education, in no small part because the same folk Hamilton feared live in an alternate reality and want their kids taught that the Earth was created ~6000 yrs ago, just before humans frolikd w trex.

  19. Barry April 27, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Paul wrote :> No where in the law does it say YOU a US Citizen will have to prove that you are a US Citizen.

    Hmm. Are you reading the same text I am? Section B on this very page, in the 2nd sentence, says that anyone arrested can not be released until they prove they are NOT illegal aliens. Presumably if they ARE illegal aliens, they will stay arrested. So, if an arrested citizen ever wants to see the light of day again, they must satisfy local police, not a court, of their status. This is true, whether a citizen or not.

    Incase the words are hard to read in context of legalese, here they are standing alone:

    > Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.

    This clearly applies to everyone arrested, including citizens.

    Paul also wrote:

    > Also, Barry your first and last words can be lawyer but when arrested the police are still permitted to ask you biographical information, like where are you from, SSN, DOB, current address and your name, as well as fingerprint you. All of which, can easily identify you and when provided to ICE determine if you are even an alien to start with. You all make seem as if it is some long complicated procedure to verify legal status, it is not. With the technology and databases today, an agent can query your entire life history with just your SSN.

    No one is saying it would be a long and complicated procedure. I could show them my driver’s license and be done with it, but that is not the point or the principal.

    And by the way, while they can ask for all this information, I don’t have to give it to them, and under this new law, if I lawyer up, they probably can’t ask anymore, because now the very questions regarding ID are investigations into a crime as defined in this law. They would do well to stop asking once a lawyer is asked for.

    Personally, I’d rather take my chances with a court than some random cops that snatched me up, and I think everyone would be better off doing the same even if the outcome is the same. We don’t let the courts do law enforcement’s job, and we ought not let law enforcement do the Court’s job either. among other matters, it is a separation of powers issue.

    > And where do you get this indefinite imprisonment from? If you are a US Citizen why do you think it is hard to verify who you are?

    I don’t think it is hard. I have the sufficient proof in my pocket generally. But that doesn’t mean I have to share it. And if I don’t, they have nothing to go on, and the law is clear I can not be released until the investigation has satisfied that I am a US citizen. If I don’t cooperate, as is my right, then I will be there until I do, or until the courts intervene, or until the cops break the law at their own substantial risk by letting me go without verifying my status.

    Now, just because *I* generally carry a sufficient driver’s license does not mean every citizen or legal alien does. Underage kids have no ID on them generally, yet they are known to get arrested. The law makes no exceptions for juveniles. Tourists from many countries are allowed here without visas I believe, and may not be carrying even a passport on them when arrested. Not that a foreign passport seems to be sufficient proof of status according to the law anyway, but still…

  20. Barry April 27, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Victor –

    Notice people in this thread are not talking about racial profiling at all? This law has more holes in it that a mile-long fishing net.

    Perhaps in your own ethnic background, people have not been oppressed, so you have no solidarity with those who are oppressed, and you have no radar for when oppression is visible on the horizon so that it can be deflected before it arrives. If so, bully for you!

    Perhaps you are not aware that Arizona has a history of incarcerating US citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, and that, combined with this law, ought be enough to get anyone’s civil rights radar working. If they have one, of course.

  21. Packetguy April 27, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Paul,

    For the record, I’m a Tea Party conservative. And a registered Republican. All the databases you cite contain zero data about native citizens you can’t use any of them to verify anative citizen’s status. The same databases also lack records on the vast majority of illegals. If the police need to verify my status, for instance, there is no database they can find this info in. Even the ssn database is worthless for this purpose. This has nothing to do with the reuirements of aliens to carry documentation. It’s not the aliens I’m worried about, it’s the citizens.

    The radical aspect of the AZ law is that for the first time in history a citizen can be detained until he proves his citizenship or until LE “verifies” it for him.

  22. Victor Ganderson April 27, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Your right, I was generalizing, but to prove a point. Thanks for bringing that up. Just like I’m generalizing, so is the law. “Illegal Immigrants” is what the law is for enforcing, whether they’re illegal Canadians pulled over for running a red light, if a couple of Brit’s get into a bar fight, etc. All of them will be subject to prove they are citizens. All Americans in the USA are required by law to carry Identity. That identity is subject to verification by law enforcement if your stopped for any suspicious activity.
    Barry, this law mimic’s the Fed Law that’s not being enforced federally. So “racial profiling” is NOT prevalent in either law, quite the contrary.
    To Marc and Barry, If you read the entire law, they do go after businesses see page 10-13
    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

  23. Packetguy April 27, 2010 at 10:32 am

    By the way, nobody has yet answered my question about how an out of state citizen proves his status. A DL won’t qualify under the AZ law, since few if any require proof of citizenship. CA doesn’t, for example. Someone tell me how a citizen from CA, for instance, could ever comply short of carrying a passport or birth certificate. Anyone?

    • ellaffsalot June 26, 2010 at 10:12 pm

      The AZ statute refers to the need for those stopped, arrested or detained to prove LEGAL PRESENCE in the US, not citizenship. In 1986, I was highly annoyed at having to prove my legal right to work in this country every time I applied for a job. It so happens that my right to work here flows from my citizenship, but it need not. No one cared about my citizenship, just so long as I had proof of my right to work here. It sucked for me, a citizen, and getting the required proof was more onerous back then–but I did it, as I have in many employment situations since. New quantum of problem in ’86 required a new solution–we all had to prove our right to work here in order to lawfully gain employment. PIA for citizens, but no one bitches about it now. With that resolution came “once in a lifetime amnesty” for those who could prove they had been here for the specified time before that law was passed….

  24. Victor Ganderson April 27, 2010 at 10:41 am

    Along with this blog, all I here is US citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, or Hitler’s Germany, or Slavery. You guys need to get real. This is 2010, everyone has either a cellphone, camera, text, twitter, Facebook, my space, or many of them. This law is so if you get pulled over or stopped on the street for being intoxicated, or fighting, or suspicious activity, you’re required to provide identity that is subject to verification. WHICH IS THE FEDERAL LAW. If a “rogue” police officer is profiling, then he and the city will be sued in a civil court.

  25. Victor Ganderson April 27, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Packetguy, Show me in the law where a DL is not sufficient I.D., I might of missed it, but as long as the DL is from a DMV, its a legit document an it doesn’t matter if it’s out of state or not. Also, if you claim you ARE a U.S. citizen, and you ARE NOT, under Fed Law, you’re FOREVER BANNED from becoming an American citizen.
    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

  26. Barry April 27, 2010 at 11:12 am

    Victor –

    Perhaps you should note your own propensity for generalizing, and see if it affects your ability to do research and make rational conclusions.

    For example, there is no Federal law that says all citizens muct carry id. That would surely be news to my 4 month old niece, born in the shadow of Ground Zero late last year. I am sure it would be news to every school child in your town or city, walking around with no ID.

    Where does one go to get this ID? There is no such place in my county here in California, for example.

    > If a “rogue” police officer is profiling, then he and the city will be sued in a civil court.

    Actually, perhaps YOU should read the law carefully. It specifically indemnifies individual officers from being sued for their actions under this law.

    As for pages 1-13 of the link, that is not “going after businesses” in the right way – it is narrowing the possible legal defenses against State action so as to make entrapment easier.

    > you’re required to provide identity that is subject to verification.

    Yes, that seems to be the purpose, cntrary to our principles of liberty in this country.

    Remember, (or learn if you never did) that in the US, the power of government is granted BY the People. In most countries, the people are subjects of the government, but here it is the other way around. Always has been, always will be.

    Any law, such as this one, that is not in keeping with those principles, will not stand.

    > WHICH IS THE FEDERAL LAW.

    No, it is not. Sorry to disappoint you Victor, but it is not the law that US citizens must carry ID. There are countries that have such laws, perhaps you are mistaking us with them?

    Anyway, the reason people refer t incidents such as AZ interring legal citizens is because it was just such an atmosphere of “tyranny of the majority” that such an even occurred, supported by the very state in question in the lifetime of people still alive. My god friend was interred in such a camp as a young baby – for what? The crime that his ancestors were from Japan?

    As a country we universally regret that incident and work to make sure the conditions to have something similar never ripen again. Which is fine, because that is in perfect alignment with our Founders and Framers creating a system where we would NOT be subject to rule by the easily inflamed masses in tyranny, bur rather by thoughtful reflection and consideration with a long term view.

    Victor – whoever told you that the Federal government requires all citizens to “carry papers” and present them on demand misled you, either on purpose or not, but they were simply wrong on that.

    To the extent your world view is based on that, I know it is going to suck to have to revise it, I am sure much of who you are as a person is tied up in all of that, but I am here for you buddy if you need help getting through it 🙂

    • JoeinAZ May 18, 2010 at 3:47 am

      Barry,
      Your neice has a Federal issued I.D. whether you are aware of it or not. It is her SSN. Unless her parents are living off the grid and do not file a US Income Tax return, the girl has one.

      joe

  27. Marc April 27, 2010 at 11:17 am

    No, all Americans are emphatically NOT required to carry identity. Indeed the 9th Circuit protects me from such claims, and SCOTUS seems to agree. So what we have ate selk-proclaimed “conservative” folk in AZ wishing to curtail my rights under the constitution when I am in their state, all in the name of keeping people from coming to this country. Of course the underlying question is, “Why?” Aliens fill jobs that are otherwise unspoken for, and if you told them to simply stop at customs and pick up a work visa they likely would, as opposed to risking their life with el coyote 😉

    on the otherhand, if I were to suggest that every citizen must have an RFID inserted subcutaneously with auto ignitions interlocked so that of the RFID does not show valid license and current insurance my guess is that the people of AZ would be panic stricken, forget about the fact that such a policy would quickly shut down one of the biggest scourges in this country (far worse than illegal immigration.)

    Ya just can’t have it both ways.

  28. Barry April 27, 2010 at 11:23 am

    Packetguy –

    I think the law is pretty clear that any valid state, federal or local ID will suffice, see section b4 in red above.

    Although in my mind, that means local AZ law enforcement is putting a lot of faith in a random clerk in remote agency office in a distant state.

    My gf works for the State of California, she has a work ID. Is that sufficient? It is valid, it is issued by the State.

    Is AZ prepared to validate every possible form of ID that might be presented?

    Ironically to me for a bill supposedly targeting immigrants the , the list does not appear to include a valid visa stamp in a foreign passport as evidence that a person has a right to be in the US.

    This seems a major oversight.

    Why?

    Because the bill is NOT about immigrants passing through AZ, it is solely about Mexicans and other Central Americans who reside in Arizona, and people who look like them.

  29. Packetguy April 27, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Barry,

    the new AZ law says that only documents that themselves require proof of citiZenship are acceptable. Moat DLs dint require citizenship-California, for example. Perhaps the law was written poorly, but read its list of valid ID’s and tell me what, beyond a BC or passport, qualifies.

    Victor,

    You said ” All Americans in the USA are required by law to carry Identity. That identity is subject to verification by law enforcement if your stopped for any suspicious activity”. Youre absolutely wrong on this. The whole point of this discussion is that this new AZ law is attempting to make that the case. Fortunately we don’t (yet) live in such a police state. In the US we don’t have to show papers, we don’t have to turn over our guns to the police (yet), and we don’t have to let the police search our homes, cars, or persons. Except in AZ, where LE agencies feel entitled to breach all of these rights.

    You probably think citizens can’t carry guns in their cars without a permit, or that the police are entitled to search your car without a warrant. You should get educated about your rights. They’re precious, and you’ll want to know what you’ve lost when they’re gone.

    • Bob May 17, 2010 at 11:08 pm

      Packetguy,
      Actually, California DOES require proof of citizenship. Here’s the link:
      http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#BDLP

      It says:
      State law requires every applicant for an original California identification (ID) card and driver license to show verification of birth date and proof of legal presence within the United States to help safeguard the accuracy and integrity of departmental documents.

      Only the original or a certified copy of one of the following documents is acceptable:

      -US Birth Certificate (certified copy from state or local vital statistics office)
      -US Certificate of Birth Abroad or Report of Birth Abroad
      -Federal Proof of Indian Blood Degree
      -USCIS American Indian Card
      -Birth Certificate or passport issued from a US Territory
      -US Passport or US Passport Card
      -US Military Identification Cards (Active or reserve duty, dependent of a military member, retired member, discharged from service, medical/religious personnel)
      -Common Access Card (only if designated as Active military or Active Reserve or Active Selected Reserve)
      -Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship
      -Northern Mariana Card
      -USCIS US Citizen ID Card
      -Permanent Resident Card
      -Temporary Resident Identification Card
      -Canadian Passport/Birth Certificate
      -Non-resident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card
      -Valid foreign passport with a valid Record of Arrival/Departure (form I-94)
      -“Processed for I-551” stamped in a valid foreign passport
      -Permanent Resident Re-entry Permit
      -Refugee travel document
      -Certified court order or judgment issued from a court of competent jurisdiction. Must contain name, birth date, place of birth, legal presence status, and judge’s signature.
      -Certification from California Department of Corrections or California Youth Authority
      -Employment Authorization Card
      -Valid I-94 stamped “Refugee,” “Parole or Parolee,” “Asylee,” or Section 207, Section 208, Section 209, Section 212d(2), HP or PIP
      -Valid I-94 with attached photo stamped “Processed for I-551 temporary evidence of lawful admission for permanent residence”
      -Notice of Action (I-797 Approved Petition) – must indicate approved extension of stay or change in status that grants temporary or permanent residency, or indicates that an original, duplicate or renewal Resident Alien card is forthcoming.
      -Immigration judge’s order granting asylum
      -Mexican Border Crossing Card with valid I-94
      -U.S. Border Crossing Identification card with valid I-94

      Seems pretty clear to me what California wants as proof…

      “Except in AZ, where LE agencies feel entitled to breach all of these rights.”
      Really? I suppose you can cite some of the numerous examples of your alleged warrantless searches in homes of innocent Arizonans for me to read here? I am outraged! Why aren’t the ACLU, Jessee Jackson, Al Sharpton, and any other people without jobs organizing protest over these warrantless searches?

      I guess I must have missed the hundreds of stories in the newspapers, for I ams sure they would have made the front pages of the NY Slimes, the Washington Compost, the LA Slimes, and the USSA Today.

      • ellaffsalot June 26, 2010 at 10:29 pm

        Only ONE of those listed documents is required; the Military ID does not include citizenship information, as I recall. Permanent Residents are entitled to serve in the US military if they wish, and many do. DoD certainly verifies the uniformed member’s date of birth, thus effectively verifying citizenship in a roundabout way, but it need not be US citizenship.

  30. Packetguy April 27, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Barry,

    I think the phrase in B4 you’re missing is:

    “IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

    As far as I can tell, no states require that your prove your U.S. citizenship before issuing a DL, and DLs are issued to foreigners on extended visits all the time. Here’s the list of requirements from the CA DMV:

    1. Visit a DMV office (make an Appointment(s) for faster service)

    2. Complete application form DL 44 (An original DL 44 form must be submitted. Copies will not be accepted.)

    3. Give a thumb print

    4. Have your picture taken

    5. Provide your social security number. It will be verified with the Social Security Administration while you are in the office.

    6. Verify your birth date and legal presence If your current name no longer matches the name on your birth data/legal presence document, see “True Full Name” and “How to Change Your Name” for more information.

    7. Provide your true full name

    8. Pay the application fee

    9. Pass a vision exam

    10. Pass a traffic laws and sign test. There are 36 questions on the test. You have three chances to pass.

    The only verification of “legal presence” is the applicant’s say-so; no birth certificate or other proof is required. I just went through this process with a friend, and we noted the vast majority of applicants could not even speak English, yet no proof of citizenship or even display of a green card was required. In fact, on the day in question my friend couldn’t take his test because the only test booklets they had were in Spanish.

    Clearly a CA DL does not rise to the “PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES” standard in the AZ law.

  31. nick castaneda April 27, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    this law is the most out ragest law that i have ever seen i am appualled that this law was passed and that the president hasent stop it yet.

    • Andy May 19, 2010 at 9:42 am

      Nick,

      If you want to see some truly outrageous laws, go to http://www.loonylaws.com.

      As to the president intervening, he’s not allowed to. That is the power bestowed upon the judicial system. The President can only voice his opinion

  32. Barry April 27, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    packetguy –

    Well, it is not that the law requires you to PROVE beyond all doubt your citizenship, only to persuade the arresting LEO to a certain standard.

    It does seem poorly written, because it seems to think that no one not resideing in AZ will ever get arrested there, that no one younger than driving age will ever get arrested, that no tourists on visas will ever get arrested, etc.

    And then it seems to allow virtually any valid ID form any rinky-dink government agency anywhere in the US to meet the new standard of persuasion I mentioned.

    In all, this logic seems full of swiss cheese holes , and the holes in this logic betray the other claims as to what the law says, what it does, and what its reason for being is.

    Note also that the Governor is reported as having said as she signed it that the State will NOW develop some course for LEO to learn how to not profile.

    Perhaps they could have simply passed a law that all LEO take that course, and then demonstrate it works via actual practice before passing this draconian law that relies on perfect and eternal statewide implementation of a process that is not yet defined.

    Why did AZ legislators take that leap of faith anyway?

    It clearly is a leap of faith if the terms of avoiding profiling have not been defined and taught, or at least made public.

  33. Victor Ganderson April 27, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    I contacted the North Bergen, NY police department at (XXX) XXX-XXXX to confirm my findings (or lack thereof). According to Officer Rovelo, it is a state law that a person must carry an ID on them at all times. He could not cite the specific code because he said it was a very old law on the books, along the lines of you cannot allow your horse to walk on certain sides of the street. He then went on to say that you would not get cited in accordance with this law, but rather the more recent “failure to produce ID” or obstruction code. And to re-confirm, this is indeed a state, not municipal or county ordinance. Most states have a similar law.

    • jr May 19, 2010 at 10:18 am

      yeah, ask a cop about the law, then accept his answer even though he says he can’t tell you the statute. Damn some people are just too trusting of police. No, people, cannont be required to carry ID on them.

  34. Victor Ganderson April 27, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    I look at this law as similar to the affirmative action law. There was an unfair advantage at one time and “unconstitutionally” we made a law to level the playing field.
    there are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., AZ has the second largest amount of kidnappings in the world next to Mexico City. Similar to Affirmative Action, a drastic measure must be taken to correct the issue. I feel this law is actually far less drastic than Affirmative Action. this law mimics the Fed law, it just allows the local and state police to curtail the illegal immigration population. And similar to the White Policeman who is more qualified, but is passed over for a black officer, and therefore inconvenienced, is no different than a legal person being stopped for speeding or walking “funny” and asked to show ID.

  35. Victor Ganderson April 27, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    You guys are going to love this one. Personally, I think profiling should be acceptable at airports and in states neighboring our borders. If there is a 6ft serial killer with brown hair and brown eyes and cops think he’s in a particular neighborhood or in a mall. They aren’t going to stop every black guy or 5 ft, old lady walking around. They’re going after the white guys. The President should say to the American people: ” Hey, we’re living in a crucial time right now and if you fit the profile of a terrorist, we have instructed Airport police to politely ask you for ID, you will be treated with courtesy and we apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for helping us fight terrorism.” And do the same for Hispanics in AZ. I would have zero problem if I were asked to do the same. It would also increase the legal immigrants and many Muslims to help solve the problem, so they would not be targeted.

  36. Mike Sanchez April 27, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    I am a second generation Hispanic immigrant and I applaud Arizona, finally a State has made the hard choice to hold the Federal government accountable for enforcement of Federal Immigration policy. This law will not be found unconstitutional as it mirrors the Federal law; the only real change is that a citizen can file a lawsuit against anyone who restricts the enforcement of Federal Immigration laws.
    G. A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.

    Bottom line is it is time to stop punishing those who abide by the law, and start punishing those who break the law. If you legally come into this country you don’t get free medical and free education, but if you come into this country illegally you do. My Abuelita saw this as a very simple situation, either you respect the laws of this country or you don’t, if you don’t then don’t come here…she was always proud to be an American.

  37. Paul April 27, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    Berry,

    All I am going to say is read the law off of the Arizona legislatures website not the cut and pasted interpretation above. Read the law not an article. Your comments only prove my point about the fact that you are trying to argue something you have never read.

    And Marc those systems most certainly do contain information on native citizens. Again, I really know you have no clue about law enforcement databases or systems.

  38. Barry April 27, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    Victor – Are you serious? None of what you say makes sense according to legal principles. Ask anyone who has attended law school if you are not clear why.

    Mike – your comment is not much better. What you cite is NOT the only difference, as has been noted at length here already.

    Amng the issues:

    1 – The burden is on citizens to prove they are not breaking a crime
    2 – This is the province of the courts, not the police
    3 – Violation of the Amendment right to not testify
    4 – Habeus corpus issues

    6 – Not sure about AZ, but every state I know of offers free education to all people living there, and maybe you haven’t followed the news in the last year and a half, but lots of people DO get free medical, and soon all of us will.

    > Bottom line is it is time to stop punishing those who abide by the law,

    So, yeah. That.

    But not this law – I am a law abiding citizen and this law does nothing but institute punishment on me that didn’t exist before.

    That is the thanks I get for vacationing and spending my hard earned money in your state just last year?

    • Bob May 17, 2010 at 11:44 pm

      Barry,
      “that no tourists on visas will ever get arrested, etc.”
      LOL What did they do– leave their visas at the airport and tell TSA that they’d pick up their visas on the way back? *sheesh* LOL…

      “…but lots of people DO get free medical, and soon all of us will.”
      Nothing is free, my friend. Nothing…

      That’s working out very well for Greece and Spain…
      So well, in fact, that we borrowed $70 Billion to lend them, and we’re darn near broke ourselves…

      Margaret Thatcher said “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money” Truer words have never been spoken.

      I like the fact that Nancy Pelosi told musicians that they can quit working to focus on their “creativity” and not have to be job-locked because they would have free healthcare. Maybe I could quit my job and let the State become MY Nanny, too… You think? In fact, let’s all quit our jobs and become creative and just bankrupt this country. Cool! Why just stop at musicians?

      Hear her lips speak it yourself here:
      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65950

      Now, back to the subject at hand…
      “this law does nothing but institute punishment on me that didn’t exist before.”

      Well, not exactly. The Arizona law copies EXISTING FEDERAL LAW. The phrase:

      “12 …if the
      13 person is in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).”

      is found in 5 different places in the AZ law. With my incredibly low IQ of 33, I can interpret that to mean that the Federal law existed prior to passage of the Arizona law. Otherwise, why would they even mention it in the AZ law? Maybe my 33 IQ just can’t comprehend that concept “because I are berry schmart…”

  39. Barry April 27, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    Paul –

    Are you 8 years old? Because you argue like you are.

    I have read the entire text, multiple times. I don’t knwo why AZ insists on ALL CAPS or publishing things in bright blue as though the web is still formatted as though this is 1994, but still…

    If you have something specific I have said, and a specific clause or section or whatever that indicates, in your mind, where I am wrong, then by all means share it.

    I have written a lot of information here since your last post, and I wrote as though I took your last post seriously. Please give me the same courtesy and indicate that you actually understand what I wrote instead of just giving a childish blanket dismissal.

    Just to recap for you, yest the law does not require you to prove you are a citizen, because that is not the only class of poeple allowed to be in AZ. Duh.

    What it requires is this (a direct quote of the law!)

    “not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following”

    The burden of presenting the proof is on the arrestee, as I said. What that burden must show, is not citizenship, but rather that one is not an alien who is unlawfully present. That includes visitors on valid visas for instance.

    But the burden of providing proof is clearly placed on the arrested person, not LEO. What the other sections say is how, once presented with alleged proof, LEO can go about judging it.

    Big difference.

    Try getting arrested under this law, and not offering proof of your status. I predict you will be waiting to leave a long time.

  40. Victor Ganderson April 27, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    Spoken like a true liberal, Barry. Everyone gets a free education and soon, free medical, and let’s not forget Rainbows and sugar cookies for everyone. (at least until they ban sugar.) Sorry Barry, any of the 49% of America that actually pays taxes, pays for education and Healthcare (although it will be de-funded, repealed or found unconstitutional) I’m pretty sure that’s what Mike meant. (sorry to put words in your laptop Mike) As far as states having laws that require you to have some form of ID if you are over the age of 17, check again, because they do. Even if it’s a non-pictured ID like a S/S card.

  41. Victor Ganderson April 27, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    And Barry, don’t be so quick to dismiss the correlation between Affirmative Action and the Az. law. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html
    Both are a necessity to temporarily level the playing field and to take the handcuffs off the police officers so they can do there job and enforce the law. And similar to A/A, some citizens will be affected in a negative way. Where it might be like the Bakke case, Allan Bakke, a white male, had been rejected two years in a row by a medical school that had accepted less qualified minority applicants-the school had a separate admissions policy for minorities and reserved 16 out of 100 places for minority students. where the Supreme Court ruled in his favor 5-4.
    Or it could be like the Grutter v. Bollinger case. The Supreme Court (5-4) upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers “a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” The Supreme Court, however, ruled (6-3) that the more formulaic approach of the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions program, which uses a point system that rate students and awards additional points to minorities, had to be modified.
    Sometimes there is a necessity to take measures that walk a thin line to achieve a bigger goal. People are not allowed to be in this country illegally. When a U.S. city has the second largest kidnapping rate in the WORLD. Extreme TEMPORARY measures, must be taken to level the playing field. Just like A/A did in the 60’s.

  42. Victor Ganderson April 27, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    The law will work and many illegals will be sent home. We still need to finish building the fence in Az. But this will put a major dent in the kidnappings, violent crime, and illegal immigrants. And just like Alan Bakke, there will be some collateral damage, a few LEGAL Americans will be detained and inconvenienced, but for the good of the whole, it’s a necessity.

  43. Barry April 27, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    Victor – why are you insulting our intelligence with arguments that there is even a single state, let alone a singel county or town in the entire US that does not offer a free education to people?

    maybe you missed your opportunity dude, but wherever you grew up, it was there for the taking and it still is today.

    You can live in a fantasyland where there is not universal free education, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to take what you say seriously.

    In fact it more likely means the opposite – whatever you say will NOT be taken seriously by anyone interested in rational facts.

    Which would include me, and apparently does NOT include you.

  44. Barry April 27, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    Victor –

    Last I checked, police, with the power to arrest and detain people, have never been involved in Medical School admissions, in any state.

    But I clearly haven’t given that matter as much thought as you have.

    Won’t you share your evidence with us that police detaining citizens illegally, contrary to the principles the country is built on – is equivalent to deciding medical school admissions?

    Surely there are laws, or even scholars who have laid out such a case, and you are the person to lead us to them.

    Won’t you share how you came to know this remarkable assertion?

    Please provide some links from the best recognized authorities – lawyers I hope, but do your best! – so the rest of us can be persuaded of your wisdom in this matter?

    I wait with bated breath!

  45. Victor Ganderson April 27, 2010 at 7:46 pm

    Did you read the post? It’s not a “free” education Barry. American taxpayers PAY for education. It’s only free if your parents are the 50% of the population that doesn’t pay any federal tax. otherwise, education is not free. I’m not one of those fortunate free loaders who don’t pay federal tax. Neither were my parents, so education was not free. My parents paid federal taxes, so I could go to public school. Healthcare won’t be free for many Americans either.

  46. Brown_Bomber April 27, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    The Supreme Court ruled in 2003, that you must show identification. See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 . I hate to say it, but this law may be upheld by the USSC.

  47. Wilmer April 27, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    Ever travel to a foreign country without your passport?

  48. Victor Ganderson April 27, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    As of 2008, 24 states have a “stop and identify” law. But many also have very old state laws on the books, that you must have some for of identification on you if you’re out in public and over the age of 16 or 17. The police will file the arrest “failure to produce ID” or an obstruction code.

  49. Marc April 27, 2010 at 9:46 pm

    No, brown bomber, the supreme ct did NOT require that you produce ID. Read the case and quit pontificating (and yes, I am an atty)

    victor, unfortunately you are not only gravely misinformed about the law, you appear to be arrogant with respect to your ignorance, resorting when shown to be in error to bullying and name calling. Grow up. And the pontificating about your payment of taxes is simply pathetic. I’d guess I likely have paid more tax than you, but as a figure of speech, education in the US is free, ie available without payment for instruction. However, most of the cost of education in this country is based on property tax revenues and almost everyone in the country, either directly or indirectly (eg the landlord passes taxes along to tenants) pays propery taxes, while home owners get assistance from the IRS by way of being able to deduct interest ec, while tenants can’t

    and I will try to remind all the other bill spporters; the law will have different ramifications based on who it is applied against, and the AZ law is unconstitutional as to citizens as soon as it is presented to the 9th Cir.

    • Bob May 18, 2010 at 12:03 am

      Marc,

      “and the AZ law is unconstitutional as to citizens as soon as it is presented to the 9th Cir.

      Then that means that the 24 year-old existing Federal law is also unconstitutional, since the simply copied existing ICE and Border Patrol law into the state statute, but still made sure that the Feds are the ones who will be determining immigration status– not AZ LEOs. Why weren’t you outraged 24 years ago when that Federal law was passed?

      Boy! I’d love to see the appeal go to the 9th circuit. Why? If you are an attorney, then you are aware that:
      “…the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.”

      Source:
      http://judgepedia.org/index.php/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit#Most_overturned_court_in_the_United_States

      Bring it on…

    • Ben May 18, 2010 at 10:36 am

      As a potential college studant, I am EAGER to learn where you can get a “free” education in this country. I have call many colleges, and ALL want some form of payment for tuition, building usage, lab fees, and books. Now, I AM NOT saying you are misinformed, I am genuinely curious. I have my own opinions as far as the AZ reform laws. I am NOT here to discuss those at this time.

  50. […] payment for the usual crowd and coordinate coverage with the local TV stations. Here’s the text of the legislation. DISFRUTE DE LA […]

  51. cupid April 27, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    Packetguy,

    Legal presence doesn’t mean being a US citizen. I can be here legally on a work visa and still able to apply for a DL in CA as long as I show proof that I’m here legally. If you go a step further by clicking on the link of the CA DMV on what constitutes a verification of legal presence, you will notice that the state strictly requires original or certified copy of documents that can prove legal presence including but not limited to a valid I-94 which is a document issued to visitors entering the US. If the state does not care or does not follow protocols on making sure those documents are presented, that would be a whole other issue. For now, it’s very clear that CA DL will meet this new law given that a legal presence has to be established before a CA DL can be issued.

  52. Packetguy April 27, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    Incorrect Bomber. The law only requires disclosing your ne VERBALLY. Read the case:

    “The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It does not require him to produce a driver’s license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.”

    Hibbel refused to say his name. That’s why he was arrested.

    I reiterate: no citizen in the US can be compelled to provide identity orbithwr documents on demand of a police or other LE officer. It’s a fundamental principle of our constitution. The AZ law would change that; it’s unconstitutional on its face. It’s an evil law written by foolish men who don’t understand liberty or the history of out country. They are constitutional morons.

  53. Packetguy April 28, 2010 at 12:16 am

    Arizona is out of control, people. The Internet is chock full of stories of blatant abuse of power, violation of civil rights, and repeated unconstitutional behavior. Check out this recent story of a student stopped for making a LEGAL U turn on a highway, yanked from her car, handcuffed and arrested, and THEN illegally searched – both her vehicle and her person. This is beyond the pale. These guys are thugs, and if you ask me, it looks like AZ is being used as a proving ground for police state tactics that will be deployed nationwide (since these tactics are directed by Federal agents).

    http://tinyurl.com/azstudentcuff

    God help us.

  54. Victor Ganderson April 28, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Marc, it’s nice to know you’re an attorney and not an accountant. A third of property taxes pays for education, I’m pretty sure “most” refers to a 51% minimum. And you have supported my claim that education is NOT free. Ask the teachers that are being laid off, for lack of funding.

    As to Affirmative Action being similar, I was merely stating, that sometimes in America we need to level the playing field. In this case, level the field so that officers can control, an out of control problem. A/A had an out of control problem with black men getting hired for employment and accepted to college. With AZ., there is an out of control problem with illegal immigrants and kidnapping. AZ. carefully constructed their law to not supersede the federal law, which removes the handcuffs off the police officers and allows them help enforce the crime of illegal immigration, which in turn will reduce the kidnapping epidemic.

    As to the “liberals” comment, while we needed liberals from 1950 to 1980 to help level the playing field. 1980 to 2010 the pendulum as swung way too far in the other direction. Crime, greed, promiscuity, etc. have risen to epidemic proportions, and while that’s great news for lawyers, until the lawyers daughter comes home beaten and raped, it’s not for society. America is now moving in the other direction, conservative values are taking back the country. What do hardcore rappers do, like Master P do when they reach the top? They settle down raise a family, go to church, and do a kids show on tv. Get ready, lawyers, now that affirmative action has allowed diversity to spread through out the police force (a good thing), it’s much harder to show racial discrimination on minorities. Now that conservative values are making a comeback, crime will see a spike over the short term of a couple of years, but then a sharp decline over the next ten. AZ. is just the beginning.

  55. Brown_Bomber April 28, 2010 at 4:41 am

    Marc

    You and the USSC are missing an important factor. Forcing me to give my name to the police without probable cause is giving identification. Stating my name verbally or showing a picture ID accomplishes the same goal. It identifies who I am!!!

  56. sam April 28, 2010 at 6:50 am

    oh paul,

    such good intentions…

    such seriously misguided thought…

    “Not if you are a USC whose SSN can be run and easily proven to be yours or can answer easy questions like where were you born? What high school did you go to?”

    right to remain silent… miranda… remember her…

    frankly, a person without identification is not detainable under federal law… all state nonsense… go back to constitutional law and re-read the 4th and 14th… really…

    • Bob May 18, 2010 at 12:12 am

      Sam,

      “right to remain silent… miranda… remember her”

      Technically, Ernesto Miranda was a “he”, and he raped somebody, but his conviction was overturned…

  57. Packetguy April 28, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Bomber,

    Merely giving your name is not the same as showing ID documents. Your name doesn’t constitute probable cause for a search; in the new AZ law, NOT having and presenting ID automatically makes you a presumed illegal, subject to search, arrest, and transport away from where you were just being a free citizen. And once you’ve given your name, you’re free to walk away absent probable cause (not merely reasonable suspicion) without syaing anything further to LE. The new law let’s you be detained untul the GOVERNMENT verifies your not illegal.

    In AZ today, tens of thousands of people are being stopped on AZ public highways at internal Federal checkpoints, in cooperation with State LE, being questioned, then detained at secondary inspection areas, then illegally subject to highly invasive searches. This is all illegal under current AZ law. That’s why AZ is promulgating this new law that goes far beyond anything any US LE agency has been permitted in the past: to legitimize the currently illegal practices. I believe this will be the template for sweeping denials of liberty in every other state in the union.

    Numerous lawsuits filed by innocent citizens subject to these LE assaults are wending their way through the courts. LE defendants have been incredibly obstructionist in these legal actions, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on such blatantly abusive tactics as arbitrary venue changes, claims of national security to block evidence gathering, and filing of harassing new charges against plaintiffs. It’s an atrocity happening right under our noses.

    You can be led like a sheep to the liberal New Society slaughterhouse. I will not.

  58. A Mindless Blog April 28, 2010 at 8:33 am

    […] 28 04 2010 ORIGINAL LINK […]

  59. Marc April 28, 2010 at 9:07 am

    Victor, do you ever tire of being wrong?
    Less than 10% of public school funding nationally comes via the federal budget. Over 40% comes directly from local property taxes. The balance comes via state budgets which are in almost all cases taxed based and is almost entirely based on property taxes except in the states that have adopted statewide income taxes or sales taxes. While it may not be uncommon for a third of your local property tax to go to fund local education, that is not the same thing as percentage of school funding derived from property taxes, and the need to ensure that people understand the diff is why we have schools 😉

    the terms liberal and conservative are meaningless for all intents and purposes. Nutcases like Palin would call Ike a liberal, while dubya wrecked the economy to enrich the top 5% or so f the population. Even the Swiss have had a national health care system for years while Americans with virtually no comprehension of much of anything screamed about death panels. You betcha!

    Sorry, Victor. I am a triple professional (lawyer, educator, IT) and Ilmy experience, which is validated by all testing, is that we are largely a nation of ignorant clowns; the very mob that our founding fathers considered a threat second only to the polarizing effects of political parties.

    You want to be a conservative? Then harken unto the Whig roots of the GOP, the first party to support unions and oppose “states rights”!

    Oh, and just because a law is on the books doesn’t mean that it is lawful. We have three branches and the final say on legality of statutes is in the courts. Legislatures do stupid politically motivated crap all the time. While I think you are misinformd re sates requirng citizens to carry ID (as opposed to a requirement they Identify themselves) it is really no matter wherecourts have ruled any such requirement illegal as is the case in AZ. Scotus could have gone further I hilber but did not, and the court is not moving “right” anymore.

    I understand how frustrated so many feel atbeing unable to comprehend the complexities of civcs, economics and history (not to mention math) but ignorance is no basis for ad hominum against those who are not

  60. Brown_Bomber April 28, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Packetguy – Merely giving your name is not the same as showing ID documents.

    I totally disagree. The same information on my ID can be given to the police verbally. It makes no difference if I verbally give my name or provide ID. The police have my information because I was forced to give it. Under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, I have the right to remain silent. No person within the jurisdiction of the United States should be force to give the police any information.

    Packetguy – You can be led like a sheep to the liberal New Society slaughterhouse. I will not.

    My belief is supported by the Constitution of the United States. I will stand by it until the day I die. I’m not a liberal. As an African-American, I don’t support affirmative action. Why? Because I believe it violates the Constitution. Don’t be so quick to judge people.

  61. Marc April 28, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    LOL, I provided a post with links to all the reading that Brown Bomber should probably undertake before opining about the constitution, the non-existent right to remain silent etc and the blog ate it because it was spammy ;=}

    Bottom line BB is that you are an uninformed ill-educated braggart, and when you advise the IRS that you are no longer filing your taxes I will send you flowers in prison

    The US Constitution, per the US Constitution has been subject to interpretation by the Courts for over 200 years. I suggest you study the case law produced during that period as well as the functions and history of our government before telling anyone what the law in this country is.

  62. Brown_Bomber April 28, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Marc – Bottom line BB is that you are an uninformed ill-educated braggart, and when you advise the IRS that you are no longer filing your taxes I will send you flowers in prison

    WOW! I cannot believe you are comparing a Terry Stop with filing out tax returns. The IRS is not patrolling the streets looking for reasonable suspicion or probable cause that I didn’t file taxes. The law is governed by the totality of the circumstances. This topic is about encounters with the police while walking or driving.

  63. Arizona Immigration Law: Leftist Hysteria, Lies, and Violent Protests | Conservative Hideout 2.0 April 28, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    […] I thought that a look at the actual legislation might be in order.  I took the legislation from KYETLaw. The site appears to be non-partisan in nature. B.  For any lawful contact made by a law […]

  64. Ron April 28, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    So, this law has immense commerce potential. Think of it, who carries their ID to the gym. If I call the police with a threat of suit for not following up; and, in the interest of not looking like they are profiling, you have tickets going to all the Canadian and European “illegals” I allege gather there.

  65. Ron April 28, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    Oh, and I forgot, for those who think you can just give your name as ID, what is the use of that law. Welcome home, memorize this name, address, and SSN (which most have done for jobs anyway).

  66. NC_WItchypoo April 29, 2010 at 3:42 am

    Better yet, Wilmer, ever try to get back into this one without a passport? Unless of course you walk over one of the unsecured borders.

  67. NC_WItchypoo April 29, 2010 at 4:08 am

    I find it ironic that the government passed healthcare reform which will require citizens to show proof of insurance cannot stomach requiring citizens to show proof of identity/citizenship. I guess being an American citizen isn’t as important as it used to be.

  68. Arizona’s Immigration Law – The Facts Please, Just The Facts! | The Doc Is In April 29, 2010 at 8:04 am

    […] and considering claims and counter claims of extremists, the misinformation is amazing.  HERE is a site where you can read the exact language contained in the law and determine for yourself the […]

  69. Alfred J. Lemire April 29, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    I am not a lawyer nor have I ever taken part in law enforcement. That said, it seems to me that the crux lies in the definition of “lawful contact” and its implications, not adequately covered in the law. It may be that Mr. Kris Kobach, and other who have defended the law with knowledge of it, ought to have at least made a stab at defining “lawful contact.”

    It appears near the top of the law, after “B.” “For any lawful contact made by” various law enforcement officials and agencies, “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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.”

    Mr. Kobach’s remarks suggest that “lawful contact” includes, say, traffic stops when cars are speeding, or wavering, or for any other reason that anyone in law enforcement may want to deal with someone for some probable cause. “Lawful contact” apparently would not entail stopping children or adults on the street for no other reason than the inquiry. The expression has to be defined for the laity, like me, to understand what it entails.

    One can expect that tech-savvy people in San Francisco will produce fake IDs of various kinds for newly arrived illegals to use. Asking for papers and questioning all people lawfully contacted would derail the charge of “racial profiling.”

  70. Packetguy April 29, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Alfred,

    “Lawful contact” foes not require probable cause it even reasonable suspicion. It’s just the legal term that identifies anybinteractiom a police officer has with the general public while the officer is on duty.

    During any lawful contact, no citizen is required to give any information to, or answer any questions from, the police, other than his or her name. CitiEns are free to walk away at any time unless the officer officially detains then, which requires reasonable suspicion. This I the so-called “Terry Stop” that you can easily research on the Internet.

    This law empowers the police to force you to prove your citizenship. If you can’t or won’t, you can be detained, arrested, and transported to a distant location against your will.

    It is the beginning o the end of Amercan personal liberty and freedom.

  71. Alfred J. Lemire April 29, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    What packetguy wrote may be totally correct. However, in extreme situations, governments and people adopt extreme measures. The United States has undergone an invasion of people from the south, mostly peaceful, and far larger than any occupying army. A demagogic and fanatic leftist President seeks to mine the situation for maximum political advantage and will not support Arizona for trying to block the invasion tide, one that has contributed to California’s debt burden–our Greece is not in the East.

    One cannot blame the people streaming north. The solution requires an international effort to develop the economies to our south. It also requires a national effort better to protect our border to the south, modify present laws, e.g., the “anchor baby” provision, and better enforce existing laws.

    None of that will happen. Sometimes, one has to choose between bad and worse. That was the case in the recent presidential elections, and the people preferred the much worse choice. Here, Arizona may have (I can’t fully concede the point) made a bad choice. To do nothing was worse.

  72. […] HTML version from keytlaw.com a business law firm situated in central Phoenix, Arizona […]

  73. Packetguy April 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    Alfred,

    Sorry, but that’s bunk. The Constitution was created to prevent just this sort convenient erosion of personal liberty. Patrick Henry had it right: “Give me liberty, or give me death.” We do NOT need to abandon the fourth amendment to deal with illegal immigrants. That’s the refuge of idiots and cowards. Anyone who gives up their liberty for a little security is a fool.

  74. Mike Sanchez April 29, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    Reading these posts I just have to wonder if “Packet Guy” or Marc are for or against banning guns…I wonder if they show the same passion in protecting the second amendment right to “keep and bear arms” as they do to thier opposition to this Arizona law?

  75. Barry April 29, 2010 at 10:03 pm

    Mike –

    You didn’t mention me, but my position re: the 2nd amendment is, if you can show me the use of the gun is associated with a well-regulated militia, then let’s talk. We can debate whether the militia you bring to me is well regulated or not, but I am guessing the number of guns ever associated with any militia are few and far between.

    Mostly I am pretty indifferent to it though, and I have stared down the wrong end of a gun on more than one occasion. I find it wholly unrelated to the topic at hand.

  76. Packetguy April 30, 2010 at 1:20 am

    Mike,

    reread my posts, friend. I’m am adamant proponent of the right of citizens to own, carry, and use guns.

    Barry,

    The founders used the term “well regulated” to mean “well functioning”, not “centrally controlled”. — as in a well-regulated clock. All the first ten amendments enumerate _individual_ rights, so the second amendment can’t be talking about a government-run army. That’s a fantasy of gun-seizing liberals.

    The founders state that all these rights come from God, which even further precludes government prohibition against the personal right to bear arms.

  77. Barry April 30, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Pacxketguy –

    Despite your being a Tea arty guy I have generally agreed with you on this thread.

    Until now.

    I am going to be frank. First of all, you are either lying or deliberately lying. regarding the Founders. In Madison’s notes from the Constitutional convention it is as crystal clear as “See Spot Run” that there was no intent to create a theocracy of any sort what so ever. The foundation for their writings that is the Constitution is 100% secular. You ignore that at your intellectual peril.

    As for the wording of the 2nd Amendment, I don’t want to derail the main topic of this thread beyond saying that the clause is unclear. it is, as you stated, worded differently from the other 9 in the Bill of Rights, and so we must take that difference as important and significant.

    I agree with you that “well regulated” does not mean “centrally controlled” – it is clearly separate from the military for instance.

    But it does not mean “well functioning” either, although that might be closer to the mark. The issue is, is the gun part of a militia effort, and is the militia itself somehow internally “well regulated”.

    As I said, when you can tie a gun to a militia, and the People can see that the militia is “well regulated” in some acceptable sense, then we can talk.

    Personally, I have never heard any gun advocate come even close to trying to meet those plain standards that the 2nd lays out. Until I do, I would simply have to say the NRA and others are missing the mark – they should be busy organizing well regulated militias, and there would be no problem.

  78. victor April 30, 2010 at 8:23 am

    First and foremost, this law is within the guidelines of the Federal law that’s not being enforced. This is far from any type of drastic measure as it’s being portrayed.
    Secondly, there are times in our country where drastic measures have been used, with success. Affirmative Action, far more severe than the AZ bill, would certainly be in that “drastic measure” category. Lincoln’s, “Confiscation Act of 1861” took away all guns (and more) definitely a “drastic measure”.
    When we have AT LEAST 12 million, over the age of 18, illegal immigrants out of 160 million working Americans, that’s an invasion of 7.5% of our working population. That requires drastic measures, like building multiple fences, the National Guard, and the much tamer, implementing the federal law that exists currently, with a little more teeth.

  79. Barry April 30, 2010 at 9:25 am

    Hey Victor –

    I clicked through your link, I was sorry to find out you live in my hometown. really, your insistent parotting of “Affrimative Action” success is laughable – we know you are no fan of Affirmative Action, and even if you are, you live in a City (Baltimore) where it is perfectly clear that it has NOT been an unqualified success.

    Your ideas are truly frightening, imposing, as you yourself say “drastic measures” on up to 93% of the population just to maybe take a wild-ass attempt at “solving” a problem.

    But you know what the absolute most fortunate thing in your life is?

    Even though you have grown to adulthood without the least understanding of the principles of liberty, those of who do understand them, and we come from all parts of the political spectrum, fight for you and your kind regardless.

    Maybe you should say thank you sometime, and learn a little about it. There is a fine public library over there on Cathedral Street where I am sure any librarian will be happy to help you for free.

  80. victor April 30, 2010 at 10:23 am

    Nice to think you Know what I think. I was for Affirmative Action. It was instituted as a temporary action to solve a huge problem. I’ll simplify my comparison so even you might grasp the correlation. There are close to 8% illegal immigrants in our country in 2010. There were just over 8% Black Americans in our country in 1961. Black Americans were being denied THEIR civil rights as Americans. America took “drastic measures” to ensure their civil rights.
    In 2010, illegal immigrants are affecting the civil rights of legal citizens. We have ignored our Federal Law for over 20 years. By ignoring that law, this problem has grown into an epidemic. As a nation of laws, we need to fix this epidemic. AZ., after watching one of their cities become the second largest kidnapping city in the world, (which is mind-boggling), AZ decided to move forward to protect the civil rights of their citizens.
    While this will inconvenience some legal citizens, it will help the them as a whole.
    Just like Affirmative Action inconvenienced some citizens, to help everyone as a whole.

  81. Barry April 30, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Victor –

    I only know what you think based on what I read here, and without a doubt, what you say is in the code of this generation’s Archie Bunkers. There are thousands of them where I live. They are not as coy as you are trying to be though.

    It has already been explained to you by an attorney here (Marc) that you are badly misinformed about the laws you pontificate about. Did that make any impression on you whatsoever?

    Like I said, it is not necessary for you to understand the nature of your liberty in order to have and enjoy it.

    But don’t mistake your not understanding it for carrying any weight whatsoever among anyone except your equally misinformed peers.

    The rest of us will fight for OUR liberty, against you if need be, and then we will not kvetch that you get to have it in the end with us even though you don’t even know what you have now or in the future.

    Because that my friend is the true nature of liberty.

  82. Marc April 30, 2010 at 11:30 am

    Oh Dear! It’s time for the March of the Maroons – lol.

    Look Mike, I have killed more of “god’s own creatures” than you could ever hope to and own a variety of weapons, including an assortment that require the payment of taxes, which I tender happily, I have been offered funding by the ILA to litigate provisions of our current arms regulations and one of my kids was a varsity shooter. Try and stay focused and quit with the name calling and pathetic attempts at character assassination (always the last stop for those who can’t manage an informed discussion.) But, just to toss the odd grenade, the 2nd Amendment was in part a response to the Brits attempt to seize the militia armory in MA though the militias were often more trouble than benefit during the war, the Federalists would be horrified by what passes for personal armament today, and nothing in the Constitution bans registration.

    And I used the “g word” because as noted, our FFs were almost entirely Masonic deists to whom the word “god” had a meaning that would be entirely foreign to much of our current populace (indeed, many of our FFs wrote about how foolish the concept of a “personal god” was; think Marx.) But that, as also noted, is also OT.

    Victor, how about if you stop and review the previous posts. You need to develop an understanding that the law is not monochromatic. It is a complex dynamic involving multiple branches of multiple hierachical sovereigns. Per Kolender and its progeny the AZ law is unconstitutional. Period. And the Supremes have indicated that while they have a 5-4 majority for the watered down Nevada statute, it is unlikely they can manage a majority for the AZ statute, hence the carefully worded caveat. People come to the US for work and they will stop coming when there is no more work. The fact that there is work makes a mockery of your claims, as it suggests the jobs the aliens are taking are seen as unacceptable employment by legal citizens who are too cheap and too ignorant of economics to understand that rising water floats all. In a very real sense, Walmart is why you have illegal immigration, Victor. Really, you need to watch more South Park dude!

    National health care taxes those who like the grasshopper don’t worry about the costs of care until too late. While healthy they tout Rand, and then scurry into the local hospital to get care they can’t pay for which gets passed on to, yes, the rest of us ants. It is in fact an inappropriate burden on me as a policy holder and indeed, the very worst form of welfare, most often engaged in not by the lowest economic strata but by the angry white employed, who have been pitted against other unfortunates by fear-mongering politicians protecting corporate interests in low wages, no benefits, and casual employment.

    As always the problems with the security state is the abuse of power, as Ike argued before many of you were born. The antics we saw during the Bush years vis-a-vis domestic surveillance give ample examples of that. And just because the SCt said concentration camps were OK, doesn’t mean such pronouncements, like Dred Scott, should not be eventually acknowledged as really bad ideas. People do incredibly stupid things out of fear and ignorance, and AZ’s law is only the most recent example of that human propensity.

    Now…. the question of a Natinal ID program, what that might look like, how it might function and the potential ramifications on the public are altogether different questions, but my guess is that the very people squealing for the AZ law, against gun registration and against the recently passed heath care bill (largely built on GOP concepts) would squeal like stuck pigs over a comprehensive National ID program. Amazingly enough, white people cruising black neighborhoods don’t like getting stopped anymore than anyone else….. and I have been shown to the edge of town by officers while trying to buy lunch because, they said, “We don’t your kind hereabouts”

    • Bob May 18, 2010 at 12:45 am

      Marc,
      “The antics we saw during the Bush years vis-a-vis domestic surveillance”

      You mean the one that says:
      “the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.” ?

      That was actually Jimmy Carter”s Exec Order# 12139, executed on May 23, 1979.

      Sorry…

      Or, were you referring to the one that says “…the program authorizes warrantless intercepts where the government ‘has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda,’ and that one party to the conversation is ‘outside of the United States’ ” ?

      That was one XO executed by Bush, predicated on Jimmy’s XO from 25 years earlier.

      Heck, Roosevelt even did it during WW II… It wasn’t just a “Bush thing”…

  83. Travis April 30, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    “[T]here will be some collateral damage, a few LEGAL Americans will be detained and inconvenienced [because of the color of their skin], but for the good of the whole, it’s a necessity.”

    Victor,

    I don’t think that sacrificing individual liberty for the “good of the whole” is a conservative ideal. It’s a scary one, but I don’t think its a conservative one.

  84. victor April 30, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    Spoken like a lawyer, Barry. I choose the Military and Police for my liberty, over a lawyer any day of the week. As for healthcare, your so wrong about that it’s astounding. “IF” it goes into effect, it will be far more costly than people going into the emergency room, far more. Many of those same people that go to the emergency room, are people that wait till the last minute to do anything anyway. The others? The most common ailment for the uninsured that go to the emergency room in America….are gunshot wounds, the second are puncture wounds. So your “scurry taxes healthcare” rant is idiotic rhetoric, verbal diarrhea, regurgitated from a South Park/Chris Mathews show.
    If there is any real indication of the amount of over use and abuse, that is to come from National healthcare, look at all the hospitals where thousands of people have showed up and called to make appointments for their free healthcare that Obama passed. And who became irate when they were told it didn’t go into effect until 2014.
    The fact is people will abuse the “free” aspect like they were samples at a Sam’s Club or Halloween candy left on the stoop in a bucket.

  85. victor April 30, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    Oh, and was it fair to “all” when white guys were passed over for college, jobs, or promotions, during the last 50 years of the “temporary” Affirmative Action? The answer is NO. But, just like in war, we have to sacrifice a few for the good of the whole. We need “Equal Justice” in America, Not “Social Justice”. And in order to get that sometimes, A few have to sacrifice for the whole. If we’re talking about Hispanics in AZ, then the legal Hispanics should step up as a whole and say that provided the LEO treats us with civility, respect and a smile, when asking for ID during an encounter, then we will reciprocate by kindly offering it to the LEO. That’s the American thing to do.
    During WWII, Thank God You guys weren’t around when rationing was expected of every American.

  86. Packetguy April 30, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Unlike some posters here, I’ll not refer to those who give erroneous statistics “Liars”. Here are some totally offbase numbers given so far, and the corrections:

    “There are close to 8% illegal immigrants…were close to 8% blacks in 196x”. Apples to oranges. The best guestimates today are that a total of 12 millioin illegals are here, out of the US population of 310 million equals 3.8%. If you just compare working populations, then the illegal ratio gets closer to 8%, but nobody knows the percentage of working illegals vs family members. Certainly a large fraction are non-working children. I suspect the actual working population of illegals is more like 5%. In 1960 blacks numbered 18.9M, or 10.5% of the population. By 1990, the African American population reached about 30 million and represented 12% of the U.S. population. So comparing illegal and black populations is pointless.

    “The most common ailment for the uninsured that go to the emergency room in America….are gunshot wounds, the second are puncture wounds.” A quick survey of numerous Internet sources reveals this is wrong. Flu and URI infection are the most common complaints among the uninsured, followed by MVAs. GSW and “puncture wounds” (are you implying knives or nails?) are far down on the list. The most common cause of accidental death among the uninsured are MVAs, with GSWs below even drownings.

    I can point you to some sources if you like, but it’s easy to find.

  87. Barry April 30, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    > As for healthcare, your so wrong about that it’s astounding. “IF” it goes into effect, it will be far more costly than people going into the emergency room, far more.

    See, that is how far off base you are. Try to track the conversation please. I haven’t mentioned healthcare one way or another.

    > Spoken like a lawyer, Barry. I choose the Military and Police for my liberty, over a lawyer any day of the week.

    I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know if that is a compliment or not.

    Actually, the military and police do not provide you any freedom whatsoever. For one thing, you may not know it, but the military can not be deployed at home, and for another, even you know that the police powers are limited to law enforcement at best, that freedom does not flow from law enforcement. Wherever did you get that crazy-ass concept?

    > Oh, and was it fair to “all” when white guys were passed over for college, jobs, or promotions, during the last 50 years of the “temporary” Affirmative Action?

    I am a white guy and I wasn’t passed over for college, in fact I was invited in earlier than my peers, and the diversity that I encountered there changed my life profoundly for the better. I became an innovative leader in exporting US technology to markets around the world as a result.

    Victor, if you feel you were “passed over” for college, I am pretty sure the reason wan’t because of the color of skin of some other guy.

    > That’s the American thing to do.

    Actually, that is the lease American thing to do it is possible to imagine. As I said upthread, AZ was complicit when the US interred American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII due to public hysteria (as we are seeing now) and with the exception of slavery, it is the single most universally regretted action of our country during our entire history.

    But glad to know you don’t regret anything and are eager to lock up American citizens simply for not having papers in their pocket, as this law provides for.

    What America did you grow up in anyway? Care to share what schools are responsible for teaching you ANY of what you are spouting here?

  88. Analysis: the Arizona immigration law « Musings of Captain Justice April 30, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    […] the Arizona immigration law (edit: related discussion here).  Here’s the text.  And here are snippets with comments. A.  No official or agency of this state or a county, […]

  89. victor April 30, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    I wasn’t passed up at all, and have not been affected by A/A at all. I’m comparing the 2, to show that
    #1 the AZ law has been immensely blown out of proportion. It closely resembles the current Fed Law that is not being imposed.
    2. A/A was an inconvenience to many whites over the last 50 years who were passed over ONLY because of the SKIN COLOR.
    3. The AZ law is only inconveniencing, if you are pulled over or stopped by police and they have reasonable cause. It’s not asking to much, in my opinion, to be inconvenienced for a few minutes if you are a legal Hispanic vs. a white person having a life changing inconvenience from getting into a favorite college or getting a job or getting a promotion solely because of skin color.

  90. Marc April 30, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Gee, Victor, spoken like a…. wait for it….. angry white guy, lol….

    Let’s see if we can work through some more of your stuff….

    While you still have not acknowledged you were cvompletely off the wall with respect to school fundings, perhaps you will acknowledge that the US Census states that “blacks” composed over 10% of the US population in 1960. While you are off by only two per cent that is a curiosity as to why anyone would argue that there were 8% in 1961 especially as census data is so easy to obtain, though irrelevant to your argument. The number of Americans of Japanese descent placed in concentration camps was miniscule, but they still lost property, rights and years of their life while persons of German origin went about their business supporting the Reich and spying for it…. And don’t even get me started talking about the Aleuts. Not to put too fine a point upon it, but how would you like to be held accountable for reparations for the involuntary servitude of the thousands of people kidnapped, enslaved and abused in this country for 100 years or so?

    As far as ER data, Injuries, which include stabbings and gun shot wounds account for about a third of all ER visits, but when you look at guinshot wounds and stabbing, HCUP data indicate that these run less than ten percent, while treatment for the over 60 crowd for COPD, stroke, etc accounted for some 40%. In fact DOJ has estimated all ER visits resulting from interpersonal violence as under 2% of ER visits.

    Now, Obama did not pass health care… that would be unconstitutional. The Congress, OUR representatives passed health care, and the bill was condemned by “liberals” because it was largely built on GOP talking points. It is certainly a far cry from what is available to the Swiss, the Taiwanese, the Germans, the Japanese, the Canadians, the Brits, etc, etc. But in targeting our current president you are finding a handy scapegoat to salve your understanding that you and your ilk represent maybe 20% of the LEGAL population of the US based on estimates from folk like Newt.

    Now, the last bit… the attempt to paint people that are not pathetic xenophobes as being seditionists or some such, that is truly as laughable as your wish comment about siding with military as opposed to the lawyers, whatever that was supposed to mean. Lawyers, of course, answer to their clients, which in the largest sense is YOU. SO you are saying you don’t want help from professionals obligated to help you, you want help from people obligated to serve the state. Yet you are constantly whining about how the state is corrupt, misguided, etc.

    We have come full circle. You really don;t know what you are talking about, Victor, and your arguments are circular. Math teachers might call that going in circles….

    • Bob May 18, 2010 at 1:09 am

      Marc,

      It’s all about the costs that you and I and the other 49% of people who actually pay taxes will bear. You said:

      “…but when you look at guinshot wounds and stabbing, HCUP data indicate that these run less than ten percent”
      It’s too bad that few people on this blog like to cite their sources for the rest of us to see. Unfortunately I find that figure to be questionable, at best.

      In my research, I found this article, which says:
      “Mount Sinai Hospital on Chicago’s Southwest side admitted 1,779 patients to its trauma center in 2009. Thirty-five percent of those had been shot or stabbed.”

      and this article…

      ER costs:
      “Violence Prevention Center: The annual medical cost of gun violence in the nation is $100 billion”
      Source:
      http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=156166

      $100 Billion?? That’s not chump change…

      =============

      By contrast:
      “The total cost of stroke to the United States is estimated at $43 billion per year.”
      Source:
      http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/stroke/stats.htm

      The difference? Most gunshot victims do not have insurance (YOU AND I pay for it), and most stroke victims do (THEY pay for it).

  91. victor April 30, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    Packetguy, the working population of both was about the same. out of 19 million Black Americans in 1960, 12 million would have been adults. Out of the 12 million illegal immigrants very few are under the age of 16, mainly because of the journey to get here. But my point is that the temporary inconvenience of some legal Hispanics, to help our country send the illegal Hispanics back to Mexico, is no difference than the white people having a to endure life changing inconvenience to give Black Americans an equal opportunity in America.

  92. victor April 30, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    As to flu or MVA, first of all, I was referring to (cost and frequency) so I wasn’t including cold and flu. As to MVA, it would be an accurate estimate that half of those MVA’s are not the medical uninsured persons fault and half of those have car ins., so I stand by my statistic. And you’ve have added to my point as far as people with the flu, because most will still go to the emergency room regardless.

  93. victor April 30, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    Off the wall with school fundings? While I still contend its 30%, you said a either “mostly or majority” then you came up with your stat of 40% which is still not either a Majority or mostly. And Iam far from an angry white guy, I merely point out that people should enter our country legally, and that there is an epidemic of illegal immigrants in this country. Also the costs of healthcare will increase by far, if National healthcare goes through in 2014. I said most of the costly uninsured visits to the emergency room are from gunshot wounds and stabbings, and will not change in 2014. The GOP on healthcare was built on fact, not talking points. Obama’s claim it would save money was wrong. The numbers given to the CBO were wrong, and the liberal numbers on Tort reform were wrong.
    Lawyers in general, do more damage than good. There are some that do good for America, but the stereotypes are true. From the billions of car insurance scams in the 90’s (that still go on) to the ridiculous malpractice claims of today. There is only ONE reason why a doctor cannot start his own practice….wait for it… Malpractice ins. They are forced to go into business with at least 5 or 6 other doctors, and its still a struggle. You definitely do more harm than good.

    • Bob May 18, 2010 at 1:18 am

      Victor,

      “Lawyers in general, do more damage than good”

      I just had to chuckle when I read that. It brought to mind the lawyer of questionable ethics who actually convinced some poor schlop that she was a “victim” and “entitled” to MILLIONS because she was too stupid to actually know that coffee is served hot, and that she should’t have to make sure the lid is securely fastened on her McDonald’s coffee cup because personal responsibility should not be a requirement of having some common sense.

      Today, most McDonald’s will hand you the lid and make you put it on yourself-thus putting the responsibility where it truly lies-with the individuals who actually have some common sense.

      Rock on…

  94. Alfred J. Lemire April 30, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    The U.S. Canadian border extends 5,525 miles and is lightly protected. I am of French-Canadian descent, speak French passably, and have backpacked to the Canadian border. I could have walked farther north through the woods and perhaps passed as a Canadian. Canadians have like entry points to the U.S. In 2000, the INS reported, an estimated 47,000 Canadians were in the U.S. illegally. Some number of Americans slipped north during the Vietnam War and stayed. But neither country has large numbers of illegals from the other anything close to the numbers flooding in from Mexico.

    So what separates that border and that with Mexico? Economies of like success. The immigration problem from the south will not be solved until government leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Latin-American countries get together for an unprecedented international effort to lift the economies closer in success, without notably, if at all, dropping our economic performance. For the left, please remember we have a sufficient challenge with improving the education, job prospects, and economic problems of our own underclass, whatever their skin color.

    Unfortunately, the U.S. has a demagogue, fanatic, and deeply prejudiced man as President who is also a calculating and cold-blooded political strategist and fraud: I know of no national leader quite like this member of the secular clerisy. (His Christianity has the same value as his commitment to private enterprise.) I can think of few people so obviously ideological who would say, in a public meeting, “I am not an ideologue. I’m not.”

    It may also not help if Mexicans would like to regain territory lost to the U.S. in the 19th century. It definitely does not help with Democrats, always sensitive to their party interests, opposing trade agreements that do not impose first-world job and environmental standards on far poorer nations. The President, who is bullying Israel, has offended the government of Poland, insulted the Prime Minister of Japan, distanced himself from the government of Great Britain, has a Secretary of State who publicly blabbed while in Canada for a G-20 meeting, with words to offend the government of Canada, and his ambassador to Honduras chose to insult the present democratic government there, whose government had forestalled a Chávez-like takeover, and most of that in one month. He can be careful, e.g., with the governments of Iran, Venezuela, and Russia.

    He is not the leader to solve the immigration problem, not in any way. He believes it is to his and his party’s political advantage NOT to solve the problem, but to use it to maximize Hispanic votes for his party, so that minority can be as sold a part of his party’s base as the blacks. And he most definitely does not want to see heavy party losses in Congress this fall; he needs a majority of Democrat zombies there to effect the rest of his ruinous agenda for America.

    • Alfred J. Lemire April 30, 2010 at 9:26 pm

      US-Canadian in the fist line: missing hyphen. And “solid” rather than “sold” in the 2nd to last line. I regret nothing else. This country badly needs to solve the illegal immigration problem; we already have a huge underclass of many colors ill-educated and with substandard housing and food, and few chances for solid jobs. They have to be a far more important concern for both parties than they are now and the fundamental solution, provided above, ought to be articulated by people with the power to be heard. I am religious and believe all humans are my brothers and sisters.Sensible action to improve the lot of the immigrant underclass and our own resident underclass must be undertaken.

      Given Arizona’s problem–someone was shot near the border tonight–a lot other than the hysterical reaction to the law is needed. The Arizonans are not Nazis nor is what they want to do Nazi-like.

  95. Kevin Duffy May 1, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    What seems to be missing from this entire discussion is the element of jurisdiction. If a state or local law enforcement officer encounters a person during other duties – traffic stop, call for service, disturbance, whatever – and finds that there are people there who he or she reasonably believes are illegal aliens, the officer cannot hold or charge them under the Federal law. Unless there is a valid Federal warrant, the officer can only notify ICE/Border Patrol and have them respond to the scene. This response has to be “reasonable” in respect to time to comply with the 4th Amendment. So if ICE/BP is going to be longer than 30-45 minutes, the officer cannot hold the suspect.

    The Arizona law simply gives the officer the power to hold someone suspected of being in the country illegally for a reasonable period of time so that his or her status can be determined. State and local officers are empowered to enforce state laws. Federal officers enforce federal laws.

    Will there be abuses? Sure. Will it be a positive way to help federal officers identify illegal aliens and take appropriate actions? Sure.

    Just my opinion.

    k

  96. Ococker May 2, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Thanks to all for a very enjoyable time. While you may or not be correct, you are passionate. This is the nature of our legal system, and the efforts of lawyers, judges and bloggers to interpret to their own advantage what others create.
    One concept must be irrefutable (but it will be refuted by those so inclined)- a nation is not a sovereign entity unless it can and does control its borders, and thus those who seek to cross those borders. Whatever emotional or ideologic reason one creates so as to justify allowing persons to enter and remain contrary to law, such action is illegal- against the law.
    Work it out, argue, diddle with the wording, take your time. But it must be dealt with.

  97. Marc May 2, 2010 at 11:31 am

    This is getting tiresome.

    Victor, read the post and do the math. 40% of school funding comes from LOCAL property tax. Add to this the portion that comes from STATE property taxes and you are closer to %70%. Add to that regressive tax applied to schools (sales taxes, for example, which everyone pays) and you at clearly at MOST…. and there is no sense “contending” since the data is available, as I have noted previously in seconds…. try citing an authoritative source once in a while.

    Again, data from CDC H-CUP etc show that you are simply wrong about uninsured visits to EDs so again, if you have a source for your claims other than Hannity. O’Reilly or Limbaugh, out with it… This sounds like more of the welfare carping we heard while those doing the carping were offended when the impact government handouts to the lower middle class were compared.

    Now, there are also those who sound authoritative but are misrepresenting the authority of law enforcement officers to enforce the laws of higher jurisdictions. While jurisdictional issues are always to be considered, any local or state police officer can arrest for violation of a law of a higher authority, and indeed this is one of the issues playing out in states that adopted medical marijuana laws in that state officers can still arrest for violation of federal law. Typically, this is addressed by an informal decision by state LE advising LEOs to “look the other way” if possible. Now, if local LE arrests a person for unlawful activity and that person at arraignment appears to be an illegal immigrant, that person will not likely obtain bail because of the flight risk. If the person is not arrested then the question becomes the basis for the LEO’s articulable basis for believing a person is an illegal alien. I have yet to hear much in the way of acceptable examples beyond, “I witnessed the subject attempting to cross the broder at a location clearly marked no access” or some such. I am ready to listen to submissions…. In any case, if an LEO has probable cause to believe a federal crime has been committed there is no reason that LEO would not arrest the individual on the spot. It is not a federal crime to be without ID if a citizen, so there could be no probable cause to arrest an alien for being without ID unless there is probable cause to believe the person is an alien, and that would be very difficult to obtain…. And, in AZ, Kolender applies, so as noted above, the police can’t arrest solely for failure to tender physical ID. Period.

    SO we are back to the same point. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, uninformed opinions and opinions that simply refuse to acknowledge the reality of a situation are going to be accorded less weight…. so, if one wants to be heard by, say, their representatives, having an informed opinion helps….

    Frankly, if one reads through this thread, one notes that those arguing from data are not more accurately characterized as moderate Republicans than radical democrats (and Obama is about as centrist as one gets, even a bit to the right of Clinton, not a radical demagogue, which appellation can only be derived from racist tripe promoted by the likes of that intellectually bankrupt noisome wretch, Beck…) who support LE, are involved in the justice system, are literate and able to find, review and analyze data as well as own and use guns, BUT, know a red herring when they smell one and understand political grandstanding (like refusing to engage in development of a bipartisan health care reform bill, finance reform bill, etc) does not in any way serve the polity.

  98. Alfred J. Lemire May 2, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    Many comments here, including at least one from Packetguy, are no longer “operative,” if they ever were. Gov. Brewer signed into law important changes. [KEYTLAW now shows key changes, near the top, after “A.”] “Lawful contact” has been amended to, “”lawful, stop, detention or arrest.” That implies, of course, the “probable cause” concern of Packetguy and also clarifies what “lawful contact” was intended to encompass.

    Also, Arizona’s law enforcement agencies and officials originally “may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.” The word “solely” has been stricken. It should not be necessary to explain why the change: to deal with the Big Hate (or Big Fear, if you prefer that) charge of “racial profiling.” It’s not about that; it’s about enforcing the law, something not done in San Francisco and other such lawless places.

    Inept, partisan, even propagandistic AP reports, along with reports by other parts of the “mainstream” news media, have made it impossible for most Americans to grasp what the law contains and will mean, or why it was written. How can our democracy function effectively if the national news media cannot or will not report truthfully and fairly, and, I should add, intelligently, on issues and developments of significance in the spheres of government, politics, and culture?

    • Alfred J. Lemire May 2, 2010 at 1:39 pm

      Should I have written x x x That invalidates, of course, the probable cause concern x xx? Think so. Tat clarifies my meaning. People who write laws and who write posts have ideas and intentions in their heads, but the words they choose do not always convey them. So they amend them, as the Arizona lawmakers did.

  99. Barry May 2, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    > Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.

    Alfred:

    This sentence in the bill remains both unchanged and the basis for my concern, which, I note, no one has even tried to dismantle as it is airtight.

    It is perfectly clear that any *citizen* or *lawful immigrant* who is arrested MUST prove, to the satisfaction of LEO, that one is in one of those two groups, prior to being released.

    That is tantamount to a new requirement on legal rsidents and citizens to *show papers* before crossing a LEO checkpoint (e.g. the jail gates).

    Regardless of anything else, this is plainly unacceptable, and a radical break with the fundamental nature and history of our country. We simply do not now, and never did, have to “show papers” to travel internally, and now, in AZ, if the law goes into effect, we would. And there is good reason why we don’t have to show papers,

    I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to demonstrate a basic understanding of our system of laws and history of our country in order to show why that is.

    • Bob May 16, 2010 at 1:25 pm

      Barry,

      The reason the jails do that is to ensure” (1)they have correctly identified the person and that (s)he is not using an alias, (2)that (s)he is not on some sort of list like Interpol’s wanted list or a known terrorist watchlist, or (3) (s)he is not wanted in a foreign country and seeking to sneak in here to hideout and avoid arrest or a trial.

      I’ve had to “show my papers” about 5 times this week alone. My bank wanted to see my ID to cash my paycheck, even though they know me on a first-name basis. The DOT inspector at the weigh station wanted to see my Commercial Driver’s license prior conducting the inspection on my truck. I had to present my ID to the shipper in order to pickup my pre-loaded trailer that was going to Houston. I had to present my ID to cash a Comcheck at the truckstop yesterday. I even had to present my ID in order to rent a freaking DVD movie last night! (hello?)

      The “papers” to which I am referring does not mean my birth certificate, nor does it mean that in the context of a law enforcement action you cited at a jail. (Can you name one foolish person who carries their birth certificate around in their wallet?) My birth certificate is stored in my safe inside my closet at home. I haven’t had to show it to anyone since I got marriage license years ago. In fact, my “papers” are collecting dust. My everyday “papers” consists solely of my valid Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), which does just fine as my main form of identification and legal status.

      I am curious as to how have you managed to live without an ID? I am also curious how you have managed to drive on a public highway without a valid driver’s license? (er, uh, excuse me, I meant to say “papers”) I do hope that you know that it is against the law to not carry your driver’s license when driving on a public highway. In fact, I want to see you attempt to go one week without “presenting your papers” and see how far you get. You are trying to equate “papers” with a legal form of identification. That is ludicrous. Report back here and let everyone know how that turned out. I’ll be waiting right here…

      One final note, the connotation of the phrase “show me your papers” is, obviously, a reference to Nazi Germany. The major difference between that context and the current situation is that in Nazi Germany, people were trying to get OUT of the country. Today, terrorists and illegal immigrants are trying to get IN. In Nazi Germany, if you didn’t have your “papers”, you could have been shot on the spot. That obviously doesn’t apply in our free country because we are not Nazis and do not randomly shoot people who do not have “papers”. In fact we enjoy the freedom to travel across state lines without having to “show our papers” to anybody. I do it every day of the week, and I make a good living doing it.

  100. Alfred J. Lemire May 2, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    I have tried to discuss the Arizona law. But Marc. . . . What facts support his opinions of President Obama, former President Clinton, and Mr. Beck? “Obama is about as centrist as one gets”? In current Cuba, perhaps, or the former Soviet Union, but the United States? “Even a bit to the right of Clinton.” Evidence, please. Not a radical demagogue? He has argued for a “transformation” of American society. He has complained about the “negative” aspects of the U.S. Constitution, which lay out limits on the federal government and rights retained by the people. Is his argument to set up a whole new set of rights, while ignoring others, not radical? (FDR proposed a similar set; his misguided policies delayed recovery from the Depression, as Mr. Obama’s government-centered initiatives are delaying recovery from the recession.)

    Mr. Obama has demagogued against big banks, as if Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the financial meltdown, or pressure on lenders from Democrats and such as ACORN to make bad housing loans; his concentration on banks has ignored the many societal errors that made the good times seem better than they were. E.g., many people bought too much house for their needs and resources, expecting or hoping for continuing price rises. Many borrowed heavily, racking up sizable credit card charges. What happened to those charges? Have you read anything about that lately? (One assumes employed people spend more prudently now.)

    Mr. Obama has demagogued against physicians. Remember the surgeon who would saw off a foot for the extra money? He demagogued against health insurance companies. The companies blundered by not fiercely correcting the ignorant and false things the Monster said about health care and its costs. (No tort reform? Of course not. They help to fund the Democrats.) Mr. Obama promised Hope and Change. He gives us Hoax and Chains.

    As to Mr. Beck, what can Marc cite to support his characterization of him as an “that intellectually bankrupt noisome wretch?” Mr. Beck’s 5 p.m.(EDT) program has no precedent in American television. It is intellectually rich, the result of considerable work by Mr. Beck and his brilliant staff.

  101. victor May 3, 2010 at 6:53 am

    Alfred, If any liberals watched any Beck show in the last 2 weeks, they would be amazed. I challenge any liberal to watch 3 shows of Beck (one has to be a Friday show) and then make those same assertions. DVR the show so you can F/F through 20 to 30 seconds of rants if you want, but watch the show and you will change your opinion.

    Great points Alfred.

  102. Ococker May 3, 2010 at 8:39 am

    Barry,

    Sadly, the times they are achangin’.
    While we’ve never had to carry ID before, this influx of the uncredentialed may necessitate it if no other control measures suffice.

  103. Alfred J. Lemire May 3, 2010 at 9:52 am

    As Barry surely knows, LEOs “shall” make a “reasonable attempt, when practicable” to determine a person’s immigration status in most “lawful” stops, detentions, and arrest interactions. People with various valid Arizona or other U.S. IDs are presumed not to be aliens. (Correct me if I am wrong, but immigrants with “green cards” must have them at all times in public.) Arizona has nearly a tenth of its population in the state who have crossed the international border illegally, in violation of U.S. law. Arizona is asking its LEOs to enforce U.S. (not Arizona) immigration law.

    When driving, one is required to have one’s driver’s license, surely reasonable, if stopped by an LEO. If 20 people escape from a jail, you betcha passengers in cars might have to ID themselves as LEOs try to cordon off highways to escape. Arizona has hundreds of thousands of people who did something similar, escaping from societies with little to offer them economically, moving to another with the many benefits of our welfare society and plenty of opportunities for more income. A small number could be tolerated, but a large number strains the financial resources of the state’s governments and health care facilities.

    As I have written, something must be done to reduce the attractiveness of the U.S. for illegal immigrants and that something would require concerted international efforts to improve the economies of the nations in the Western Hemisphere. Leftist governments, like our own, impede such cooperation. Short of that long-range effort, which would be more ambitious than the Marshall Plan, the U.S. must strengthen the at-risk border, modify some laws, and enforce its laws. The Arizona law accords with the last need.

    And don’t airline passengers have to ID themselves, especially given the reality of terrorism? Americans have to undergo far more intrusive contact with the government when they seek to board commercial airplanes than showing papers. The “show papers” concern, like a concern about the means used to prove one does not bring an explosive device aboard an airplane, would be respectable if reality did not suggest measures taken are sensible, given the risks and the realities.

    On Mr. Obama, I could have added the results of a National Journal scoring of U.S. senators for 2007, which rated him the Senate’s most liberal senator based on votes, for 2007, at 95.5%. Senator Biden also was among the senate’s most liberal senators, getting a 98% most liberal ranking on foreign policy, tied with Sen. Sanders. Both Sens. Obama and Sen. Clinton shifted their votes to the left in 2007, surely to gain cred among the Democrats’ redhots, like moveon.org, Daily Kos, and Marc. Sen. Obama’s slightly less “liberal” votes in prior years likely were cast to please the Illinois electorate and his 2007 votes showed the real Obama. His presidency supports that view.

  104. Anna May 3, 2010 at 10:21 am

    If the penalties and class of crime (e.g. class 2 felony) were anywhere near as severe for employers of illegal aliens as they are for the individual illegals themselves this might actually do something.

    Illegals certainly make a strain on the budget of the State of Arizona in some ways, but there are hundreds of employers (including individuals, small businesses and corps) who benefit and profit from the use of massive numbers of illegal immigrants as workers. This is just a ridiculous oversight.

    Don’t even get me started on profiling. Seriously if there was a law like this in Chicago, it would be very confusing due to the huge numbers of illegals here who look just like the dominant culture (i.e. white). With all the illegal Eastern Europeans, etc, in addition to the Latinos and Mid-Easterners, law enforcement’s head would be spinning. Illegal immigration is a serious problem in this country. It drains our resources in many ways, and should be taken seriously by everyone. Profiling, stopping people on the street. Oh my God, if you’re a Native American (and could be mistaken for an Hispanic — how ironic) or a Mexican American citizen or legal resident, you can’t even go for a walk in your neighborhood without an ID.

  105. Tom May 3, 2010 at 11:12 am

    To all Police State Phobias here.
    Here is how it works.
    A police officer makes contact with an individual. This individual may be involved with a auto traffic situation, or from a dispatched call from the officer’s dispatcher, or thru paperwork supplied by his department that must me attended to.
    The officer early on in the contact of the person of question will ask for ID. They never ask for citizenship papers as the first form. It is always a common form of ID, such as a DL. When the officer is supplied with an ID of the person of question, he checks with his dispatcher for verification of the person and whether their are any outstanding warrants. If the ID does not match, the officer then usually arrests the individual for giving false information. If the information does match and there is no need to hold the individual, the officer proceeds with what his stop was for or why the contact is being made. An officer may ask for an individual’s green card, visa, or citizenship papers after the preliminary things are done. For instance, if the individual in question says he is a citizen of another country, then the officer will ask for any valid papers for his presence in AZ. If the individual cannot supply the necessary papers, the officer should at that point make an arrest. If the person of question supplies papers, they are verified and if they are in proper order, the individual is free from further questions about his presence in AZ.

  106. Barry May 3, 2010 at 11:49 am

    OCocker –

    do you understand any American history at all? Do you realize that we ecame a country after fighting a war precisely because the British treated us the way you would have our own government treat us?

    If we don’t want to be different now from the British as they were then, then why even have a country?

    Which others of my civil rights are you willing to give up on my behalf and why?

    You do know that habeus corpus, the right to not be arrested and held without cause, dates back 800 years to the Magna Carta, and is the most fundamental freedom from which all others derive?

    You are really ready to toss away 800 years of history, to the very foundation of our legal system, just to have this law in Arizona?

    Are you sure you have REALLY thought this through? What the broader implications are? What other countries you can think of, past or present, have forced people to “show papers”? Are those the countries you want to be like?

    As for Alfred’s misreading of my post, try again my friend. I am not suggesting that any stop is unlawful in my scenario. Maybe they caught a guy red-handed with a case of soda coming out of a Circle-K.

    Still, the law provides for habeus corpus violations, and requires LEO to make a decision on citizenship status before release, even if bail would normally be proffered. This is true for anyone arrested under any law in the state of Arizona should this law go into effect, not just those arrested under *this* law.

    And that is a big BIG problem that has nothing top do with immigration policy and everything to do with separation of powers and habeus corpus.

  107. […] 1.  A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.| 2.  The United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). ‘” [Keytlaw Source] […]

  108. Barry May 3, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    @Tom –

    Yes, that is one possible path through a siutuation, and it is a problematical one regardless of the immigration issue.

    Keep in mind that a DL is sufficient proof of citizenship according to this law.

    Now, in your situation, a person mere having contact with an officer (not arrested or even detained) can escape the situation without providing proof of citizenship – failure to do so results in arrest.

    Yet, as Marc and others have pointed out before, the Supreme Court has ruled in such cases, a person does NOT have to provide any id to an officer. At most, maybe just a name.

    So, if an officer is playing the way you describe – and many if not most will, I am sure, and a citizen is playing according to knowledge of his or her rights as enumerated by the Supreme Court of the US, which the police are obligated to abide by, there is going to be a conflict.

    And the fault for that conflict will fall on the shoulders of the officers, since they are in the wrong, and should know better.

    Yours is not the only problematical path through a situation as proscribed by this law, I have listed at least one more that is independent of immigration issues.

    By presenting the path in such detail, I feel like you are actually making the opposite case you intended to make.

  109. Packetguy May 3, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    Tom,

    You said “A police officer makes contact with an individual. This individual may be involved with a auto traffic situation, or from a dispatched call from the officer’s dispatcher, or thru paperwork supplied by his department that must me attended to.
    The officer early on in the contact of the person of question will ask for ID.”

    This is the crux of the problem. Currently in the US, you and I are FREE TO JUST GIVE OUR NAMES AND WALK AWAY at this point, no matter what the “lawful contact” is for. This is an essential, critical personal liberty, because it prevents LE from detaining people indefinitely without cause. And by the way, the contact may not be an auto situation — an LEO simply walking up to someone is a “lawful contact”. For traffic situations, you have to give your DL because you’re required to have a license to drive — it’s a privilege, not a right. But we all have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and history shows that “show your papers” governments exploit that process to indefinitely detain someone. Not having papers that are “in order” is an automatic carte blanche to take someone away (I’m happy to cite examples if you need them).

    Your statement “If the individual cannot supply the necessary papers, the officer should at that point make an arrest.” is the ENTIRE PROBLEM with the AZ law. Failure to have papers is probably cause for arrest! This is evil. Very evil.

    There are some proposed revisions that may fix this in AZ. But they’re not passed yet, and they’re not terribly clear.

  110. […] Have any of Arizona’s critics actually read the bill? […]

  111. victor May 4, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), the Supreme Court unanimously sided with LEO’s asking someone for ID if they “Looked Mexican” (San Clemente, Ca.) for questioning people as to their citizenship or immigration status

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/04/jan-brewer/arizona-immigration-law-rewrite-lays-rest-worries-/

  112. sonya May 6, 2010 at 11:47 am

    I am not a lawyer. I am a legal alien. To me it is quite clear that from this law, I should be prepared to prove my legal alien status. This can be achieved by showing my green card, which I do usually carry with me. However, my children are US citizens. To prove their legal status we would have to show a birth certificate. This is certainly not something we normally carry around with us. At the moment my daughter’s passport and birth certificate are both in the mail to the state dept, since she is renewing her passport. She therefore has NO proof of citizenship in her possession at this time. To the US citizens in favor of this law – do you realize you will be obliged to carry around proof of your citizenship under this law? People who do not drive do not have drivers licenses, and people who do not travel abroad do not have passports. The only option therefore would be to have a birth certificate in your possession. When someone is applying for a passport and sends away their birth certificate should that person stay at home for 5 weeks? People seem to think that if they are not illegal aliens, this law will not apply to them, but it will, because you will have to PROVE you are a citizen/legal alien, and you will therefore have to carry such proof on you at all times. Do you normally send your teenagers to school with their birth certificate on them?

    • Bob May 16, 2010 at 2:26 pm

      Sonya,
      Since legal residency had to be established before the enrollment, proof of enrollment will suffice as legal residency. Carry their last report card around in your purse. Most school districts need proof of legal residency (notice I didn’t say “citizenship” because LEGAL migrant worker’s children are legal residents, but not citizens yet) and the kid’s immunization records prior to enrolling kids in school.

      As for what the kids should carry on them-their school ID is fine because it establishes residency as explained in my 1st paragraph.

    • JoeinAZ May 18, 2010 at 4:59 am

      Sonya,
      AZ offers a state issued non-driver ID; you are dumb to not have made a copy of your daughter’s old passport and birth certificate before mailing them off to the State Department. As a functioning adult in this world, I carry proof of my “residency” at all times.

  113. sonya May 6, 2010 at 11:57 am

    In reply to Tom, my children do not have any ID except for a passport, which normally stays locked at home except for foreign travel. Right now my daughter does not even have that, since the old passport has been sent off in order to be renewed. Exactly what ID should someone who does not drive or travel abroad have on them at all times?

  114. McFadden May 7, 2010 at 9:18 am

    I’ve loved most of this discussion–i.e., the parts that have stay on-topic and cited sources.

    Sonya, may I suggest an ID card for your children? You’ll need to wait for your daughter’s documents to come back, of course. (Not making a value judgement on the law as good or bad here, just a suggestion that will allow your children to not have to carry around birth certs or passports. And obviously making your kids carry ID is burdensome and obnoxious.)

    As to the larger debate–and I’d love to keep this legal, not ethical–, providing proof of citizenship gets a suspect off the hook, sure; but it isn’t required. What is required is verification. Essentially, the law says: the cops have to verify citizenship before release. BUT if you prove citizenship in one of the following ways, you’re free to go.”

    BUT!! Where this still leaves us is verification. If (and I’ll take Marc’s or Packetguy’s or whoever said this’ word on the matter) you as a citizen are required to give no more than a name (if not driving) when questioned by police:
    –> HOW DO THE COPS VERIFY YOUR LEGAL STATUS? Short of a search of your effects for an ID (a 4th Am. search, to be sure), if all they can legally get out of a recalcitrant suspect is a name, GOOD LUCK VERIFYING. I guess if your name is Platypus. Q. Lemonade, a name might be enough to search the relevant database. But if it’s John (or Juan) Jones…well..hmm.
    –> Search DL database for picture: if you dont give state of residence, tho, that will be a LONG search..and way too cumbersome for LE..
    –> If you don’t have a DL/have never had your photo put into a gov’t database (like, say, if you’re 15) then I think you’re basically stuck, because I don’t think Gov’t will be able to ID you. Perhaps they can book you, and then ask you more questions while you’re being booked (as those questions aren’t governed by interrogation rules, to my knowledge)….but that means the REMEDY FOR A 15 YEAR OLD US CITIZEN w/ NO ID WHO DOESN’T SAY ANYTHING BUT IS NAME IS ARREST AND BOOKING AT BEST (if booking questions provide enough info for ID), AND BEING HELD FOR A WHILE AT WORST.

    SO….under this analysis, it does seem like Sonya’s kids are in danger, BUT ONLY IF THEY STAY SILENT. However, since silence is a right…I might have to side with Marc/Packetguy on this law being an infringement, even though it would only infringe in limited cases.

    Thus, not legally, but PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, I agree that the law in some cases basically forces the suspect to give information to the cops.

    Thoughts on this analysis, please?

  115. Marc May 8, 2010 at 8:58 am

    @mcfadden w/o sweating the details (eg once arrested Miranda applies) you did a reasonable summary.

    Practically speaking, where things get ugly are where LE is seen as intrusive and obnoxious, whch of course is often based on LE’s perception of the population, and round n round. I personally bristle when a officer approaches and the first thing out of his mouth is “ID please” though I understand the reason for the request. I was harrassed not so long ago and tcketed for a moving violation that did not take place because my vehicle was on a list (no plates or VIN of course.) It was not until I mentioned the incident to an LE friend that he chuckled and apologized for his brother officer and explained what was going on. But I am a white male member of the Bar; a Polynesian friend was thrown in the slammer on much more flimsy pretext. I am not suggesting all LEOs are bad, but some are and some just get caught up in the war mentality-it is a dangerous and thankless job. So it behooves us NOT to put cops in inappropriate situations, situations such as arguably forced on them by this statute

  116. Marc May 8, 2010 at 9:19 am

    As far as Victor’s posts regarding what anyone had to say about anything, I simply suggest that the reader go to the primary source.

    Re the suggestion that I for one am a dupe of anyone, I actually do taken in Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck and Dobbs (before he left) and I also enjoyed watching Olberman and Maddow not to mention Stewart make fools of them, not because of where I stand on the political spectrum, but because they are morons (just ask Will, Frum & Buchanan-lol). Frankly, anyone who thinks Beck and his staff are geniuses probably skipped more than a few classes; there are too many others making that point to give argument based on the claim that Obama is a racist socialist demagogue any substantive consideration.

    In a very real sense folk in US dispute Hohfeld’s argument re correlatives in claiming that we have rights but no correlative duties. While obviously an over generalization, Canadians are much more respectful of the duty owed by which they obtain any right. From a law and society perspective, that is often the basis for admiration of American brashness, and also a reason for others to deplore our hubris. We are entangled in this wild west/Puritan dialectic fantasy and I think have lost our way

  117. Marc May 9, 2010 at 2:19 am

    I had some time so found URL for case Victor misrepresented:
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=422&invol=873

  118. Marc May 9, 2010 at 2:30 am

    And apparently Alfred appears to have ignored the fact that I am not a Democrat and that AZ is being sued by it’s own metropoli over the statute. He apparently would join with Mr Cheney who may yet be called to stand trial in Spain for war crimes in denouncing the Pauls, who are certainly not Democrats. This is not about partisan politics but about repudiating arrogance and ignorance.

  119. Alfred J. Lemire May 9, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    A delayed and perhaps not helpful response to Sonya’s questions: If she is a resident of Arizona, she should notice that one of the acceptable IDs is a “valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.” I found a reference to that at http://law.justia.com/arizona/codes/title28/03165.html .

    The “nonoperating” ID is for anyone who does not have a driver’s license or whose driver’s license is suspended. Would that apply to her daughter? Maybe. I saw it a pdf from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that recommends against a Permanent Legal Resident (Sonya) carrying a passport around; the green card would do. I could not find anything in that US CIS document that speaks to the status of children, other than a reference to the children of Conditional Residents. (I suspect that Sonya consulted the same document.)

    I am not aware of a similar nonoperating license in other states. A good question for Arizonans or lawyers: Why does Arizona provide such an ID license, anyway, for someone to use for identification purposes? (My surmise on that is worth zero.) Do other states have similar special IDs?

    If Sonya is a resident of Arizona, one assumes that some resource is available to respond to her concern. Most Americans and their government representatives are delighted to help someone like Sonya, especially given her caring attitude toward her daughter.

    I have read news reports of suits from Tucson and Flagstaffs. Reported remarks of the mayor of Tucson indicate that he misunderstands the law’s key provision, which limits status inquiries to “lawful stops, detention and arrests.” Thanks in part to bad reporting from the AP and the New York Times, many people do not understand that the law restricts inquiries. Nor has the reporting done a good job of explaining why the law was written and passed.

    The arrogance re: the law comes from those, e.g., the President, who assail it without bothering to read it or to reach fair and reasoned conclusions from its text. And the ignorance comes from those who do not want to recognize the extent of Arizona’s problems or the limitations of this law, which, effectively, requires Arizona’s police officers to enforce U.S. law. Why is it wrong to enforce U.S. law? And one of the people who worked on the law is a former chief advisor to a President of the United States, on federal immigration law. I suspect he has a clue as to what the state can and cannot do in a field in which he has some knowledge.

    I will cut out long responses to some other remarks. But Glenn Beck good. Barack Obama bad. Evidence abounds for both conclusions.

  120. The Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law « The Young Oak May 11, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    […] – I hadn’t yet read the law. I finally read it in its entirety.  You can find it here.  The website I linked to is a great place to read it, because the site explains what was already […]

  121. Bob Seelos May 13, 2010 at 11:20 am

    We needs a national ID for every U.S. citizen. If no card, you probably should’t be here.

  122. scott May 13, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    Paul well written posts. But my friend I think you are wasting you time trying to convince these people what the letter of the law actually says. Their minds are made up and don’t confuse them with the facts.

  123. Robert May 13, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    I have noticed in many of these arguements that the term “racial profiling” is brought up. Racial profiling is NOT illegal. It is done, and for GOOD cause, EVERY DAY, and SHOULD be done, and to ANYONE who disagrees, I bet I can change your mind.

    Suppose you are robbed at gun point by a white male, 6 feet tall, blond hair and blue eyes. You call the police, and report the crime. Now, if you are as AGAINST racial profiling as you say, you should then expect the police to investigate and arrest ALL males, regardless of race, because to only arrest WHITE males, would be racial profiling.

    Also, those of you concerned that the WHITE officers in, say, Pheonix, will run wild arresting Mexicans, consider also that SIXTY PERCENT of the law enforcement in Arizona is latino.

  124. Bummed in Burbank May 13, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    I only wish California had the guts and intelligence to pass a similar law. We need one.

  125. Razing Arizona May 14, 2010 at 5:16 am

    […] Full text of the new Arizona anti-Illegal Immigration law everyone’s been talking about. […]

  126. Packetguy May 17, 2010 at 11:37 am

    Since the law was revised by the original drafters to replace “lawful contact” with “stop, detention, or arrest,” I find a lot less to object to. A “lawful contact” lets LE walk up to anyone and demand written identification. However, there are still serious issues. Unlike Bob, who cheerfully will give up his right to walk around without ID and be subject to erosion of his personal liberties, I’m not willing to accept that not having ID on me when just walking around automatically makes me a criminal subject to detention. The law, as it stands, PRESUMES me guilty for not having ID, since the only presumption stated for citizenship is to show ID. Reasonable suspicion, which is all this law requires, is not probably cause, which is the standard for every other arrest. Bob can’t envision a circumstance where this could be use against him, but I can, and I’ve seen LE abuse their power with legislation like this. Where I live, the local police got a special “gang enforcement injunction” passed that makes it a crime for any gang member to be out after a 10PM curfew, or to wear certain gang clothing (such as sports team logos), or to congregate in certain areas.

    This is very congruent with the AZ law, since LE can’t tell who the law applies to without stopping them. I’ve been stopped about numerous times over the last several years, and in each case LE attempted an illegal search of my person (when walking), my car, or a field sobriety test to try and gather evidence to detain me. I work with LE, and I understand that is the nature of the job: you use every tool granted to intervene as much as possible, in the hopes of catching a crook. LE does not consider constitutional aspects of the laws they enforce, assuming that the legislature did that when they passed the law.

    The upshot is that this single injunction, which is supposed to be a temporary law, has caused serious delay and inconvenience to me, has soured my relationship with LE where I live (as opposed to where I work, in another city), and has resulted in a number of mistaken arrests and outright harassment. I can tell Bob that it’s no fun living in a police state, and that’s what he’ll have if more changed aren’t made to this law to prevent LE from using it to arrest people without probably cause.

  127. Packetguy May 17, 2010 at 11:40 am

    For some reason, when I type “probable cause”, my spell checker changes it to “probably cause” unless I notice and go back to fix it. So please substitute “probable cause” for “probably cause” in my post above.

  128. Craig May 17, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Bob…
    I don’t drive. Therefore, I have no necessity to carry a “driver’s license”. I live in a metro area with good public transportation and I ride my bike most places. I go to the bank once every week on pay day. I take my ID with me when I need it. You assume everyone commutes in the same manner. The HOLY driver’s license. We all lead different lives, yet the law applies to all of us the same. Why should I HAVE to carry my identification on me if I choose not to. Why is ok for the government to tell me I HAVE to identify myself. I don’t pay taxes to be hounded by the people I pay to protect me.

    See, I can walk around town running my errands, go to the park, post office, the grocery store (I use cash, I know…old school.), all without my ID. Now, in Arizona, I could be stopped for any reason (j-walking if a cop was really feelin’ the law), even for leaving Home Depot with a friend and giving the peace sign to a buddy in his car we see and he returns the sign.

    “13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for work; unlawful application, solicitation or employment; classification; definitions”

    Sounds ridiculous, right? “C’mon, man, getting approached by the cops for saying ‘what’s up’ to your friend?”
    No…this…is ridiculous:

    “G. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:
    1. “SOLICIT” MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE EMPLOYED.”

    THAT is potential grounds for probable cause. All for just wanting to pick up a new drill and cup of coffee at my friendly, mom and pop hardware store and seeing an old friend.

    If I don’t have a way to prove that I’m legal, even if I’ve lived here for 32 years, my entire life…they take me in. How do you determine who is involved in suspicious, illegal-immigrant behavior in a border town/state? Answer: The color of their skin.

    How…HOW, can anyone in this country, with all of our supposed freedom, support such a heavy-handed, racist, fascist set of laws?

  129. Craig May 17, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    By the way robert,
    The example you used of being robbed at gunpoint and the authorities searching for the described suspect is NOT racial profiling. AND it’s a terrible comparison. We’re not talking about violent offenders, necessarily. Realistically, we’re talking more about traffic stops. If you pull someone over because they have 5 hispanic people as passengers based on an assumption they are illegal, THAT is racial profiling. And now, with these laws, that could be considered probable cause.
    That not the America, I know.

    • Bob May 18, 2010 at 1:42 am

      Craig,

      “We’re not talking about violent offenders”
      That is EXACTLY what we’re talking about here! Coyotes, drug dealers, (and probably some occasional Islamic terrorists exploiting our weakness) who shoot farmers, cops, cows. You don’t call that violent? Phoenix is 2nd in the NATION for kidnappings. What the heck do you mean “not talking about violent offenders”???

      “If you pull someone over because they have 5 hispanic people as passengers based on an assumption they are illegal, THAT is racial profiling. And now, with these laws, that could be considered probable cause.”

      Thank God that exact thing is very specifically prohibited in the law…

      Cops can’t just “pull someone over because they have 5 hispanic people in their car.” You see, it is not against the law in Arizona to be driving around with “5 hispanic people” in your car. If they did, they would face civil suits. If I am wrong, please cite the section of the Vehicle Code which states such.

      However, if the car makes an illegal U-turn, or has a burned-out tail light, then the cop has every legal right to pull the car over.

      Read the law please…

  130. Craig May 18, 2010 at 11:22 am

    That happened to a group of my friends IN Arizona. They committed no offense. The car was in proper working order. My friend is a mechanic, a damn fine one I might add. They are always doing what they can to NOT get pulled over because they know they have a greater chance of BEING pulled over. FROM THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES! Always drive the speed limit. ALWAYS stop fully at stop signs. Never run a yellow light, let alone a red. Check the car light’s every day before leaving work. THIS IS HAPPENING! American citizens living in fear in their own country because of the mass amount of profiling and harassment that’s already taking place.
    You can say all you want about the technicality of the law but the REALITY of what actually happens on the streets is a lot different than what you may have been exposed to or assume to be reality.
    Are you a brown skinned man?
    Have you ever been unlawfully pulled over by the POLICE?
    Have you ever tried to file a grievance with the state to complain of on incident involving the authorities that supposedly protect us and been blown off?
    Have you ever tried to go to the newspaper and tell them about a specific incident involving unlawful execution of local, state and federal law and never heard a word back?
    These laws open further the right of law enforcement to openly harass anyone and detain them until they figure out who they are. How long would it take to be identified by ICE or a border patrol agent?? How long? I really want to know the answer to that question if you happen to know.
    I’m giving you a real life example of what’s ALREADY wrong with the system. Something YOU may not necessarily see every day. Law Enforcement doesn’t always properly enforce the law. THAT is reality. And when authority is given more power, that power breeds more corruption.
    This is just the beginning. Does the law stop here? What next?
    Wake up and see what’s happening in the world outside of your computer box or your desk.

    • Bob May 18, 2010 at 3:50 pm

      Craig,
      “How long would it take to be identified by ICE or a border patrol agent?? How long? I really want to know the answer to that question if you happen to know.”

      A few hours….
      “…the process followed at field stations are similar to those practiced in the booking of criminals in smaller police stations.

      ‘[Suspected illegal immigrants] are booked just like they would be in a police station: fingerprinted, photographed, and interviewed, Counts said.

      He suggested The Nation may have stretched the facts for the benefit of readers. Take the amount of time detainees are held in ICE field stations, Counts said.

      ‘After reading The Nation article, how long do you think detainees are normally held in the field stations?’ He said on average detainees are held in the facilities for two or three hours at the most before being transferred to local jails.

      He said detainees are provided telephone access in all of the offices, provided the opportunity to speak with the consular officials from their home countries and given a list of free or low-cost legal assistance in the area.”

      Source:
      http://www.coloradoimmigrant.org/article.php?id=561

      As far as asking me if I have been ever pulled-over by the police, yes, I am routinely pulled over about 6 or 8 times a year based on the vehicle I drive. As soon as I hit the exit ramp or shoulder, I grab my logbook, registration, bills of lading, and meet the officer on the right side of my vehicle and ask him why I was pulled over. They usually reply by citing some nonsense about a torn mudflap (barley legal, but reasonable cause nonetheless), one of the 18 tires with marginal tread (barely legal, but probable cause nonetheless), and much more. I know they are doing it strictly to look at my logbook (per Federal law that says I must have one and it must be current). As soon as they are done looking at it, I ask them what other probable cause they have, and most of them usually groan and just tell me to be careful. In addition, my vehicle is inspected by State Police at least 3 or 4 times a year.

      Yes, I know my rights and I cherish every one of them, but I also know what federal regulations cover my job (the FMCSA Regulations), and I comply with all of them. Without federal regulations, the skies would be dangerous, and the highways would be killing fields.

      Without federal immigration laws, we would be a nation of outlaws, coyotes, and drug smugglers. Oh wait… That’s already happening in the bottom 100 miles of Arizona and Texas parallel to the Mexican border. Border Patrol are being shot and killed, ranchers and their families are being shot, killed and kidnapped, drugs are flowing in like Niagara Falls, and I am confident that some parts for Nukes and/or bio-bombs have been smuggled in (can you actually see what’s inside each and every one those 41,000 knapsacks and duffel bags that come across every month? 500,000 illegals/yr breaking our immigration laws = over 41,000 per month)

      What I see here is everyone wants to criticize existing federal law, yet nobody wants to post their alternative to our country being invaded. Yes, 18 million lawbreakers is considered an invasion. Yes, I’m pissed. The past 5 presidents have done nothing to seal our borders. Nothing. 17 miles of fence. Big deal… 17 miles… Prosecuting Border Patrol Agents who risk their lives, instead of prosecuting everyone who has broken our laws and who do not respect our sovereignty.

      Instead of arguing with all of you, I would like to see alternate solution posted here. If you don’t like the fact that Arizona is desperate to protect its citizens, then do something about it. I think “military maneuvers” along the border would do the trick, since the coyotes can usually out-gun the ICE agents. The maneuvers do not violate Posse Comitatus, which prohibits the use of troops for domestic law enforcement. Border security is not domestic law enforcement. It is protecting our nation from foreign intruders or an invasion. In fact, the army patrolled the border for more than 46 years after the passage of the Posse Comitatus act.
      Source:
      http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/zieve/060713

      Anyone else want to offer up something?… C’mon… Quit your bitching and let’s see YOUR plan…

      What we currently have is not working, folks. Should families within 100 miles of the border have to live in constant fear? Well, they do. I’ve heard and seen their actual stories on radio and TV. I’ve seen the hundreds of water bottles that litter their private property everywhere on their ranches. I’ve seen their cows shot and butchered. I’ve seen the remains of their chickens that were stolen and cooked and their pigs that were stolen and cooked. Cars are broken into, hot-wired, and then stolen. Clothes hanging on a clothesline are stolen. This is 70 miles from the border!!! Would you like to live in a lawless area like that, or would you like to live where you can safely play with your kids outside your house?

      Let’s hear your plan, people… Put up or shut up.

  131. Craig May 18, 2010 at 11:23 am

    p.s. you’re a paranoid xenophobe.

    • Bob May 18, 2010 at 4:39 pm

      Craig,

      Before I reply, I would like to preface by saying I used to be a Liberal. In fact, I was a Liberal most of my life. When they slid waaaaaay to the Left, they abandoned their base, including me. Since then, Conservative values have opened my eyes. I like my money, and I do think that I can spend it better than the government can. In fact, the fed is broke and I’m not… I do not want to give the government most of my hard-earned in exchange for the “priviledge” of having the government be my nanny from cradle to grave. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

      ====================
      I do not remember who said this, but it is one of my favorite sayings:
      “When liberals have no facts, they will usually resort to personal attacks”.

      I am a paranoid xenophobe? Really?… My Italian wife would disagree with you. (Yes, she’s a immigrant)

      Haven’t you seen these images on TV or heard these ranchers on PBS or some other station? I have a Sirius radio in my truck, so I listen to about 10-12 hours of every kind of radio broadcast imaginable. I watch news and even the Sunday so-called “news” shows. I hear a very broad range of views. And before you post it, no, I do not listen to Rush all day, everyday. He is not on Sirius (or XM). I scan and see what’s on. If it sounds like a good debate, I listen, and I consider myself to be more informed than the average Joe. I’m not an expert, but, rather, an elevated level of knowledge of current events by hearing views from both sides. That way, I am free to decide instead of having some reporter telling me what I should believe.

      Have a nice day, unless you are offended by that statement. If so, then have a lousy day instead. That covers both bases…

  132. Marc May 18, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Well Bob, you can be as loud as often as you wish, it doesn’t make you any more accurate, any more logical, nor any more intelligible. Your snippy remarks about cites is rather ridiculous in that the more cites I try to add to my posts the more this site blocks my posting, so I gave up providing all sources, especially as they are easy to find. And while your ability to take data and argument out of context is nonpareil, such conduct does not promote rational discourse, so at the end of the day you are, in a sense, yelling at yourself about how foolish the rest of the world is. Good luck with that.

    However, if I can get this site to accept one cite, here is an analysis of reversals of 9th Circuit cases as compared to other circuits.
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200512150016 whatever Posner’s claims of a decade ago. As a member of the bar of that circuit, I can tell you that quite a few of the reversals we have seen are reversals of opinions by conservative judges appointed by Bush and that members of the Circuit attribute reversals to the size of the Court. In any case, when wonders why epople like you are not going apoplectic over Circuits that have had 100% of their cases reversed as opposed to the ~75% averaged by the 9th Circuit.

    In any event, the Supreme Court in its last term had a chance to make a sweeping statement that would have signaled its intent to overturn Kolender, but it specifically chose NOT to do that in language that arguably confirmed the 9th Circuit’s position. When you are admitted to the 9th Circuit’s bar to argue the case please advise as I will fly in to watch the argument….. but then again, your comments suggest that you have an issue with lawyers- so maybe you would rather move to some country that does not have lawyers, as our lawyers are fundamental to our form of government, and, lest we forget, do their clients’ bidding.

    You can castigate the rest of the world all you wish, but as noted by quite a few people who are members of the GOP, are employed in the justice system, and have read the legistaion and understand the implications thereof, this is not about politics, this is not about the “liberal” media (whatever myth you are mouthing about whatever that is) or about communists trying to take over your country (the GOP got its start supporting unions and all manner of “socialist” schemes, lol.)

    This is bad legislation. Yes, there have been efforts to make it less bad, but for a myriad of reasons they fall short, leaving the statute a political statement largely by angry old white people. Does that make it racist? Maybe, maybe not, but it is bad legislation, whether it is racially motivated (I am guessing in part by some) and could be racially exploited (and yes, it could be abused for such purposes) or not.

    And yes, the US does not have clean hands with respect to acquisition of lands southwest of the Louisiana Purchase. That does not make illegal immigration “right”, but it is cause for some amusement. If you can’t see the humor than you are truly myopic and maybe should emigrate to somewhere more to your liking. Your people are obviously not from this continent…….

    As far as ER data, info from one ER does not translate to national treatment rates in Hospital Emergency Departments, though they may make for great headlines. Anyone who can’t find CDC or HCUP data really isn’t trying very hard.

    Frankly, I am tempted to support a “purity” law that would require everyone in AZ to produce documentation of legal entry into this country or else be deported. Afterall, as I have have records of my family’s lawful entrance, what did is it to me if anyone else can’t – lol. My guess is that most of those squealing in AZ would be hard pressed to prove lawful entry into this country, “For ’tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own petard”

    • Bob May 18, 2010 at 4:19 pm

      Marc,
      I looked at your site. The fact right on the page is that the 9th circuit has a winning record of 3-for-16. II i were a coach, I’d pull that player. I do not know why you even brought up those other cirsuits. You diod not mention them, and they willnot hear this case. It is irrelevant.

      “…your comments suggest that you have an issue with lawyers…”

      No. I said I have a problem with lawyers of questionable ethical character. That is not a blanket statement covering ALL lawyers. I am sure it is a very small percentage, although it should actually be zero. From what I’ve read in your posts, I do not feel you fall within this narrow scope. Go back are re-read my statement, since you missed it the first time around.

      I guess I should ask you if you, being of an assumed sound legal and ethical background, would truly tell somebody who didn’t burn herself once, didn’t burn herself twice, but burned herself thrice, that she is a “victim” and should sue McDonald”s for $4M? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice. Or would you tell her she’s got an “entitlement” mentality and to seek counsel elsewhere?

      By the way, the award for the obviously clumsy lady, er, uh I mean “victim”, was substantially lowered upon appeal. If I were a pimple-faced kid working the counter when she came in the 3rd time, I think I would have told her that perhaps coffee and her did not agree, and I would have suggested the orange juice hence. If I were on the jury, I would have laughed aloud in the jury room after the facts were all presented.

      Burned herself 3 times… LOL…

  133. Bob May 19, 2010 at 6:33 am

    You know, I am NOT anti-immigration. I am anti-ILLEGAL immigration. I’m getting tired of figuratively wasting my breath trying to convince most of you that we need to do something and we need to do it now. None of you have bothered to offer your own plan. I put my money where my mouth is, however, in a previous post. Instead of bitching about it, let’s hear your perfect plan…

    If you say to go after the employers-sorry. It was copied from the Federal law into the AZ state statute that you so despise. If you say build a fence, the funding is there, but only 17 miles have been built. If you say let them stay, the why would you want to reward illegal behavior? It’s been tried twice and we see how well that worked-out. If you really want to let them stay, then I guess we can also give pot growers a pardon, too, while we’re at it because the are only trying to make enough money to feed their families- just like the illegal invaders (most of whom do not pay Fed income tax or state income tax or SSA tax on their income). If you say hire more Border Patrol, I’ve addressed that issue by using military instead (why speed-up our impending bankruptcy by hiring even more taxpayer-paid government employees when we already have a taxpayer-paid army who can instantly stop the problem tomorrow?)

    Last year, ICE Arrested about 250,000 fence-jumping lawbreakers and shipped them back to get in line and immigrate the right way (like my wife did). The Federal law has been on the books for over 2 decades and has now spanned 5 president’s terms. Those of you who can’t fathom the concept that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and NOT Arizona Law Enforcement Officials are the ones who will be detaining these illegal invaders and drug smugglers should understand one thing: The people featured in these 2 short videos could be your future next door neighbors.

    So, take 7 minutes out of your day to meet your new neighbors. Maybe you can even offer them a beer and some BBQ pork. Oops! My bad. They don’t eat pork…

    Think it’s just a Southwestern problem? Think again…

    Watch both parts: Part 1 (3:06) and Part 2 (3:51)
    http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html

    Bob

  134. tim May 19, 2010 at 8:17 am

    For those who chose to read neither the actual arizona law or the federal law regarding the right to stop illegals based on ‘reasonable suspicion’:

    Thus, it has now been held that persons may not be stopped and questioned on the street by immigration officers absent a reasonable suspicion that they are aliens. See Lee v. INS, 590 F.2d 497 (3 Cir.1979); Cordon de Ruano v. INS, 554 F.2d 944, 946 (9 Cir.1977); Illinois Migrant Council v. Pilliod, 548 F.2d 715 (7 Cir.1977) (order entered upon hearing en banc), modifying, 540 F.2d 1062 (7 Cir.1976); Au Yi Lau v. INS, 445 F.2d 217 (D.C.Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 864 (1971). But see Marquez v. Kiley, 436 F.Supp. 100 (S.D.N.Y.1977).

    Seems the law has no disfavor with this concept.

  135. tim May 19, 2010 at 10:24 am

    to the comment about no law requires carrying an ID, once again not reading the law does not mean there is no such law. Au contrare, all non citizens are required to carry identification.

  136. tim May 19, 2010 at 10:28 am

    Who wants the president to intervene? Hell all i want is for him to enforce the existing law. He certainly knows how to get involved in things most people don’t care about.

  137. craig May 19, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    Bob,
    I love your debate tactic of not recognizing any part of an opponents argument that questions your viewpoint. A true American. Don’t give an inch. Your opinion is the only opinion.
    And your wife. That came legally. From Italy.
    Are you seriously comparing a mostly safe and peaceful country in Europe to a violence-ridden, drug-cartel controlled country that borders a “free” country.
    The REASON people are trying to get into this country is to get out of the HELL that surrounds them. Did you book a vacation to Juarez with all of your hard earned American money. There’s also a few less Italian immigrants applying for green cards in the USA because their country isn’t permanently engulfed in turmoil.
    The line happens to be a lot longer from Mexico than Italy, Bob.
    And you never answered my question of how long it would take to be identified by and authorized Immigration officer or ICE agent after the initial confrontation?
    You never want to have a true debate. You couldn’t even comment on the story I gave you about my friends unlawfully pulled over as a result of racial profiling and racism.
    I don’t care if you used to be a liberal, they’re just as delusional as the conservatives.
    Xenophobes aren’t afraid of all immigrants, just the one’s they don’t like.
    Comparing Italy to Mexico…unbelievable.

    • Bob May 19, 2010 at 8:52 pm

      Craig,

      “And you never answered my question of how long it would take to be identified by and authorized Immigration officer or ICE agent after the initial confrontation?”

      Ahh, but I did answer you… I’m not going to re-paste so I won’t have to be redundant. You can simply re-read my post and see for yourself.

      So, if we do as you propose and just allow (without any recourse or verification of a person’s identity) unregulated border crossings to any group of people whose “country [is] permanently engulfed in turmoil”, then we would the official dumping point for taking in Chinese by the billions, 3-4 million Somalians, 2 million Angolans, 750,000 Ethopians, 3 million Iranians, a couple of million Cubans, and about a million or so Haitians thrown in for good measure. Do you have the same empathy for them, or are you only partial to illegal fence-jumpers and drug smugglers? Their countries are in turmoil, too.

      We simply cannot do what you desire. In order to maintain some semblance of control over our country, Immigration issues a certain number of visas every year. These illegal invaders are flipping you and me off every day by not obtaining one. There are also terrorists (who are very wise and exploit our weaknesses) who go to Mexico and learn to speak “Mexican” (FYI: they do not speak proper Spanish, they speak “Mexican”, which is a far cry from true Spanish which is spoken in Cuba and Spain).

      If you doubt a terrorist could possibly ever come to your town, then watch parts 1 and two of this troubling news report:
      http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html

      If Immigration didn’t regulate the number of travel, work, and residency visas every year, it would descend the US into chaos, which is already materializing within 100 miles of our southern border. Funny thing, but you don’t see kidnappings, shootings, butchered rancher’s cows, thousands of water bottles and knapsacks (which could have been carrying anything ranging from food supplies to drugs to a terrorist’s bio-bomb or nuke parts) anywhere along our norther border. I wonder why? Maybe it’s because they are, for the most part, doing the the right way up north, and obtaining visas. Yes, there are arrests up there, too, but not even close to the 250,000 annual arrests on our southern border.

      Your premise that a country “is in turmoil” does not lend credence to your longing to give them unbridled permission to break our laws or not respect our borders by literally invading our sovereign nation. Period. (Yes, 20 million unauthorized armed people crossing our border is considered an invasion by any standard) Another country “in turmoil” has several legal avenues for their citizens to apply (I SAID APPLY!!!) for legal asylum status. Obama’s mother is one such recent example. She was here illegally, but a court recently granted her political asylum. Breaking the law simply won’t cut it with me as a flimsy excuse to get unskilled tax burdens (and hospital budget-busters) into our country. They must do it legally.

      I want to ask you something. Do you think it is fair to the LEGAL immigrant workers who did it the right way? How do you think they feel about the 20 million illegal invaders who bypassed the “the line” while the LEGAL ones waited behind and did it the right way?

      You are getting me all wrong. I am not opposed to immigration. I am opposed to ILLEGAL immigration. All I am saying is the these invaders do it legally, just like everyone else who has a green card has done.

      As for my wife — she did it the right way, and she had to wait about 3 years to do it, but she did it completely legally. She has been a US citizen for over 40 years now. Actually, there was quite a bit of turmoil in Italy during the 60’s. Read your history books, unless they’ve made them politically-correct nowadays and omitted the facts about that era. My wife’s family is from Milan (Milano) in Northern Italy near the Alps. They finally got to leave in 1969 after anarchists (terrorists of another name) had pretty-much taken over the town, controlled the police department, and eventually bombed a bank, killing about 20 people and injuring about 100 more. Sure Italy is nice now, but it was in turmoil and much different today than when my wife and her family left. So much for your “their country isn’t permanently engulfed in turmoil” argument. Italy was engulfed in turmoil for over 30 years following its collapse after WW II. Maybe you didn’t hear about it in your history classes… Please leave my wife out of this argument. I used her only as an example of the right way (and legal way) to enter our sovereign country.

      Finally, I would like to point out that unless you wave to your buddy and he jumps into your car to go to a jobsite, then neither you nor him has broken a law by you simply “waving” at him. There are 2 flaws in your logic. First, if you are in the parking lot because you just “bought a drill”, then you have not violated the law, because it specifically states in Section 5, Part 1 that you cannot stop on a street:

      “It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped
      34 on a street, roadway or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up
      35 passengers for work”

      A parking lot is not a street…

      Secondly, you are not waving or gesturing to hire your friend. You are “saying ‘what’s up’ to your friend” as you put it. Unless “What’s up” is a secret code word for “Hey- Do you want to illegally work for me today”, then your argument has no basis. The law specifically says in Section 5, Part G:

      G. For the purposes of this section:
      14 1. “Solicit” means verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a
      15 nod that would indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be
      16 employed.

      Keywords: “Willing to be employed”. How do you go from “saying ‘what’s up’ to your friend?” to be “willing to be employed?” That takes quite a bit of imagination to stretch the law that far. Besides, if you have the drill in your hand, receipt in the bag, and your friend has his car in the parking lot, then there is absolutely no probable cause. You are desperately grasping at thin air. Go ahead. Hide a camera in your car, then go meet your friend at Lowe’s using the scenario you created and record what happens. You will be waiting a long time for any results. Let me know what happens. In fact, post it on YouTube so the entire country can share your outrage. Heck, Al Sharpton might come to your defense, maybe even Jesse Jackson or the ACLU (American Communist Lawyers Undergound). *falls off chair laughing*

      You and I both know darn well that the usual deal is that some dude who wants to break our “right to work” laws will drive to Lowe’s and look for the group of illegal immigrants standing out by the curb. He will stop his pickup on the street and wave at about 2 or 3 guys to get them to come over and jump into the back of his pickup truck. He then goes off and breaks our labor laws by allowing them to work with out the required SS card and proof of citizenship, as required by the Fed Law. I am confident that the guy in the pickup truck will not be issuing a 1099 form to his “workers”.

      The law does not say a darn thing about buying a drill, having some coffee with your buddy or saying/waving ‘what’s up’ to your friend.” You are illustrating a desperate and unlikely scenario. The cops will not be looking for people who are waving at their friends. They will be looking for employers who are breaking the law and for illegal invaders who are breaking the law. You and I both know that. C’mon, get real…

  138. Sparky May 20, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Every LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) is required upon reasonable suspicion of illegal activity to initiate a ‘Terry Stop’. Once the ‘Stop’ is initiated depending on any answers and observations of the seasoned LEO, the reasonable suspicion may lead to Probable cause, etc… Should that probable cause lead to an arrest wherein a person’s identity comes into question, every LEO is required to investigate that person to identify him/her. Besides being the LEO’s Duty, this is common sense. If it should be established that the person stopped may or may not be an undocumented alien, the person is taken into custody, and a request through either computer or via telephone is sent to Immigration and Customs Enfofcement who makes the determination as to the status of the alien. The alien is either relkeased with a court date or arrested for illegal entry if there is no record based on an existing Federal Law. A detainor is sent by immigration to the local LEO by the Federal Agency or ICE should the Alien need further investigation, or an ICE Agent is dispatched to the local LEO’s location. This goes on in every state in the United States. It is nothing new. Also the Embassy of the Illegal Alien is normally called and informed of the arrest, at least that is my agency’s policy. Again, every State does this, or is supposed to do this according to Federal Law. Arizona put it in writing, so what. If you think local LEO’s have time to go around and just stop people for no reason than wake up carry some id; should you get stopped, as I have on numerous occasions, show your ID which takes all of about 20 seconds and move on with your life. I somehow got placed on the TSA list and get stopped at the airport whenever I leave Mexico and enter the United States and I am an LEO. I’d rather be stopped and cleared than someone get by. It’s really not that big a deal. I’ve been stopped in Canada, Jamaica, etc… because of how I look, so what!! I am legal. I am a LEO. I welcome the thousands of immigrants from whatever country that enter our country legally. For those that do not, you should be stopped, and made to do it the correct way, or go back and wait your turn like my ancestors had to do.

  139. Robert Dupuy May 20, 2010 at 10:55 am

    What people seem to miss in these arguments, is the federal government is not simply incompetent in protecting our borders, but then, magically 100% competent in processing legal immigration – but they are in fact, incompetent in both spheres.

    The U.S.C.I.S. status that Arizona is checking, was never meant to be a status you could enforce. So when you say they weren’t enforcing it, DING DING DING, you are right. If it was enforceable it would have been designed in a completely different way.

    Let me explain, say you bring your fiance over from Canada on a K-1 Visa, she comes into the country on a 90-day Visa, during that time you are required to get married, and then submit a ‘change of status’ going from a non-immigrant visa to an intending immmigrant. If that 90 day period expires, without U.S.C.I.S. acting to send you a new 2 year temporary ‘permanent’ resident card, guess what, you are out of status.

    U.S.C.I.S. will send you a letter advising you to stay in the country. If you leave the country during this phase without permission, you have violated the rules and will have your application denied. You must stay in the country, not leave.

    Meanwhile you are ‘out of status’ until the paperwork snafu is cleared. So along comes Arizona and uses these status to determine you are ‘illegal’.

    Sorry, but the fact that these statuses were not enforced by the Federal government, is the entire point. They never had to do a status system that could be used at this level, for this purpose.

    And its not clear that Arizona can force the Federal government and the other 49 states, to use a new system.

    This system is a disaster, except, since its really about racism, we are all assured ‘don’t worry’ it won’t be applied to your fiance from Canada…and, yes, that is probably true.

  140. victor May 20, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    Long time no hear. I commented back on page one two and three, that the AZ law was absolutely legal because it resembled the Federal law, but had less teeth. After hearing from an array of “know it all” pompous attorney’s gave lame reasons as to why it was not, I’m chiming back in with another LANDMARK UNANIMOUS 9-0 DECISION.
    http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423 chomp on this Liberal ACLU wannabees.
    What you guys should be up in arms about is the sanctuary city policies that are in direct conflict of Federal law.

    • Blazen May 21, 2010 at 3:48 am

      Okay Victor exactly what does this have to do with the new AZ law.

      How is this “landmark case” relevant.

      They were serving a Search warrant! They had the right to detain her in handcuffs and determine who she was.

      Now if the AZ law require detention and reasonable cause instead of lawful stop and reasonable suspicion I don’t think anyone would have said a word.

  141. victor May 21, 2010 at 6:18 am

    Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), the Supreme Court unanimously sided with LEO’s asking someone for ID if they have “Reasonable suspicion” (San Clemente, Ca.) for questioning people as to their citizenship or immigration status

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/04/jan-brewer/arizona-immigration-law-rewrite-lays-rest-worries-/

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=422&invol=873

  142. victor May 21, 2010 at 6:54 am

    The AZ. Law does require detention, Blazen, read the law. They can’t walk up to you and ask for your ID/Papers. The Law allows LEO’s, during a legitimate detainment, to ask for ID/papers if they have reasonable suspicion, provided the “reasonable suspicion” is not due to race. The Law actually specifies that racial discrimination CANNOT be used. By specifying that in the law, it makes it even easier for Lawyers to reach a settlement if racial discrimination were a factor in the detention.

    • Bob May 21, 2010 at 11:15 am

      Victor,

      I need to make a small correction to your great post. Although the AZ law does require detention, the detention is not done by AZ LEOs, it’s done by ICE. The legal code delegating them to do that is in the AZ law, but it is ICE’s responsibility to actually do it. I am also glad you mentioned to Blazen, “…provided the ‘reasonable suspicion’ is not due to race”, because that allows for a civil suit jackpot to anyone who is questioned strictly due to race.

      And to Blazen,
      “reasonable suspicion” is a legal standard which allows any LEO to conduct a normal field investigation (in an attempt to obtain facts and/or information to clear a suspect), during which the suspect has every legal right to remain silent, except to state his true name, which was affirmed by the SCOTUS in Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. The Court’s ruling in Hiibel states in Part III, “Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. In the ordinary course a police officer is also free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment.”

      Furthermore, in Terry v Ohio, Justice White stated in a concurring opinion that, “a person detained in an investigative stop can be questioned but is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest… The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop.”

      Those are Justice White’s words, not mine…

      Link to the decision:
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

  143. victor May 21, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Finally, someone making sense in these posts. Cheers Bob. Also, to clarify, what I meant by legitimate detainment was detaining someone for a traffic violation, disorderly conduct, stabbing someone, etc., of course after they determine they might also be illegal they are obligated to call ICE.

  144. […] are saying, cops can’t just grab you and ask: “Are you a citizen or a green card holder?” The statute states [4]: For any lawful stop, detention, or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law […]

  145. Art May 22, 2010 at 5:44 am

    IF you are DRIVING, you are required by law to carry and present a valid, current drivers license, or CDL if you happen to have a communist drivers license for a 2nd division vehicle!

    If you wish to cash a check, they require a drivers license or other valid Identification – if you jumped the fence, and don’t like our laws – jump back over the fence – why is it the ones that ARE illegal feel they have rights to demand anything, here? GO HOME – go fly your Mexican flag IN Mexico, make your protest sign in English, dummy – NOT Spanish! MAYBE some one MIGHT care or even read it!

  146. victor May 22, 2010 at 7:32 am

    The real social issue here is, instead of Obama siding with illegals or Muslims, what a great president would have done in both cases is take a higher road by asking legal immigrants to help us with this epidemic of 12 million illegals in our country, by either turning them in, or by gladly cooperating with police if you are being questioned about your own status. Also, stress that policies all over the U.S. will remind LEO’s to approach with extreme courteousness and a smile as well.
    Same with Muslims in airports, if the president took the side of asking them as Americans to help the USA by showing tolerance when being questioned by police and guaranteeing the police will do the same. If both parties approach the situation with a smile, then e would avoid the conflicts that have been rising.

  147. Ray Martini May 22, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    WHAT PART OF “ILLEGAL ALIENS” DON’T YOU GET ???

  148. Carly May 22, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Tom and Fred,

    You know that not a single government, no matter the political structure, has yet ventured to undertake a serious inquiry into the position of the working stiff. But what a number of investigations have been undertaken into crises — agricultural, financial, industrial, commercial, political!

    The exploitation of the American taxpayer imposed through TARP and PPIP and other mammoth government spending sprees in this country have forced the US taxpayer to wonder about what an impartial and systematic investigation of governmental skullduggery might uncover. In the hope that maybe we can induce our republican government to organize a far reaching investigation into facts and crimes of our government’s exploitation, we are only promoting an inquiry of this kind with the few resources which are at our disposal. You can observe the support of all the legal working people in town and country, in North and South, who understand that they alone can describe with full knowledge the misfortunes from which they suffer and that only they, and not Washington elite, can energetically apply the healing remedies for the ills to which they are prey. We also rely upon people of all races, faiths, credences and political persuasions who, being wishful for the reforms so necessary in the circumstances, must demand an exact and positive knowledge of the conditions in which the the American working men and women — the people to whom the future belongs -work and move.

  149. Blazen May 24, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), the Supreme Court unanimously sided with LEO’s asking someone for ID if they have “Reasonable suspicion” (San Clemente, Ca.) for questioning people as to their citizenship or immigration status

    Yeah in a BORDER ZONE!

    I doubt anyone would go so far as to actually believe the intention of the ruling was to give Local civilian law enforcement through out the entire united states the same level of unmitigated authority to anyone at will and ask for papers.

    The other thing you missed is “questioning people” not demanding proof of lawful status.

    • Bob May 24, 2010 at 3:44 pm

      @ Blazen,

      I don’t know to whom you were responding, but there are two phrases you mentioned.

      “Local civilian law enforcement through out the entire United States the same level of unmitigated authority to anyone at will and ask for papers.”

      and

      “In a border zone”

      Border zone? That’s a good one… Have you been to Columbus, Ohio, lately? There are plenty of illegal invaders residing there. Cleveland. Nashville. Atlanta. Chicago. Kansas City. Denver. Portland. New York City. Peoria. There are over 20, Million invaders in our country, and they aren’t just living in “a border zone”.

      Unmitigated authority? At will? Local LEO still doesn’t have that power. In fact, it’s strictly forbidden in the new law. Section B, Part 2 states that there must first be a lawful contact with police. Secondly, ICE, and not LEO, has been delegated the task of determining a person’s immigration status, as per the new law. In addition, CURRENT Federal law (Title 8 USC, Section 1304, subsection (d)) REQUIRES legal immigrants to “carry their papers”- in this case a “green card”- on them at all times. That law was passed in 1986.

      The actual Federal code states:
      “…shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him.”

      Border patrol and ICE are the only agency who can ask an immigrant to produce their green card without first obtaining a “lawful contact”. They have had that power for over 24 years. AZ cops, however, cannot do that, unless they want to face a civil suit.

      You can read the actual 1986 Federal statute here:
      http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VII/1304

  150. victor May 24, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    “I doubt anyone would go so far as to actually believe???” I stated 2 supreme court rulings that were 9-0 UNANIMOUS DECISIONS. And your come back “I doubt anyone would go so far as to actually believe” You need to stop “Blazen” and come up with something better than that. Both, show that when stopped for a separate possible violation, the LEO has the right to inquire about Citizenship, if he has reasonable suspicion. If someone has a British accent, if they’re wearing a Beret and have French accent. If they are wearing a Burka and have an accent. A reasonable suspicion to inquire about citizenship, WHILE BEING DETAINED/stopped for another violation.

    • Blazen May 25, 2010 at 8:49 pm

      “the LEO has the right to inquire about Citizenship, if he has reasonable suspicion”

      Yes they have the right to inquire! But outside a border zone you are under no obligation to provide it! As it would be a direct violation of the 4th amendment And this only applies to federal officers NOT Civilian LEO.

      You are misinterpreting the rulings you are referencing. I suggest you reread UNITED STATES v. BRIGNONI-PONCE after you read it take a look at a few legal briefs on the case and see if those interpretation concurs with your’s

  151. victor May 26, 2010 at 5:51 am

    Both of theses cases will be used to defend the AZ. Law. And if anyone wants to put a wager that the Supreme Court WILL RULE IN FAVOR of the Law, email me at victor.kiss@yahoo.com and I will take on all comers. You can debate, rebate, or pontificate, all you want, but the FACT of the matter is you people who oppose this Law are going down a dead end. And I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.
    @Blazen, in the second case I posted, you haven’t commented on that one? And don’t try and say that a warrant gives LEO the right to ASK to prove Citizenship.

  152. Fentex May 26, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    With this law a cop can stop a person and demand their papers.

    Exactly the presentation and reality of submission of individuals to state suthority presented as the enemy of liberty when practiced by the U.S.S.R and fascist states.

  153. victor May 26, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    @FENTEX, Are you nuts READ THE LAW, you sound like Eric Holder. You can’t stop some one and ask for there papers. And if the cop does, the American citizen wins a lawsuit. Both are provisions written in the law, you have obviously not read. You Liberals are so off base.

  154. Blazen May 26, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    “And don’t try and say that a warrant gives LEO the right to ASK to prove Citizenship.”

    Thats exactly what it says.

    Once a suspect is detained or arrested then LE has the authority to verify lawful status. Read a brief on that ruling from any reputable source and they all concur.

    The problem here is your interpretation of the rulings. Americans have seen their 4th amendment rights slowly and constantly chipped away at under the pretext of fighting crime and terrorism. This new Arizona law created by right wing authoritarian legislatures is just another chip.

    People who support this law are supporting the continued erosion of our 4th amendment rights under the pretext of fighting illegal immigration.

    This is nothing new the easiest way to get people like them to surrender their constitutional rights is to scare them with the words “WAR” “Invasion” and “terrorism” and they hand over their constitutional rights without a fight.

    They won’t be happy until the United States resembles a police state where the police are Judge, Jury and executioner and have the authority to stop and detain anyone without any cause whatsoever. Further more I have to wonder what the real motive in securing our borders is. Ask yourselves is it to keep people out or to prevent people from leaving.

    I can see why no one here talks to you long. You don’t care to honestly debate a subject. All you care about is always be right. You’re acting like an adolescent in a pissing contest.

    • Bob May 27, 2010 at 2:50 am

      @ Blazen “Once a suspect is detained or arrested then LE has the authority to verify lawful status.”

      Wrong. ICE determines status. They always have. They always will because it is written into this law. Tell me which section says that local LE has that authority…

      Identifying suspects has been practiced for ages. First, the arresting agency has to determine who the person actually is (usually by fingerprinting) because I’m sure you know that criminals often will use an alias to escape warrants in other states. This is also done so that they can determine whether or not the suspect is wanted overseas (Interpol, or terrorist watchlists, for example) and has come here to escape prosecution in another country. You have a problem with THAT???

      Secondly, Arizona LE will not be determining immigration status. (I’m getting sick and tired of repeating myself…) That is the job of ICE, as written into this law. I don’t know how many times I’ve wiggled my fingers typing that statement. LEO may arrest someone, but they will not be determining immigration status.

      Ever since 1986, Border Patrol can ask anyone to present their green card because legal immigrants MUST have it in their possesion at all times, as per 8 USC, 1304(d). Where was your outrage 24 years ago when that was passed?

  155. Barry May 26, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    Blazen wrote:

    > … created by *right wing authoritarian* legislatures is just another chip

    Excellent turn of the phrase.

    Everyone who is truly interested in teh AZ law and its implications should google the scientific research dating back 30 years on “right wing authoritarian” personalities.

    Particularly if you are *for* this AZ law, see if you see yourself being described.

    Because so far as I can tell, all of you in the thread to date are textbook examples. And that ain’t good for our future as a nation.

  156. victor May 26, 2010 at 8:04 pm

    i ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOUR LATEST COMMENT BLAZEN. That, however, what I meant by “And don’t try and say that a warrant gives LEO the right to ASK to prove Citizenship.” was a preemptive strike at you, then commenting that a warrant gave them MORE of a right than a normal detainment, like a traffic stop or a disturbing the peace stop. And arguing that ruling was different than the AZ Law. Of course I knew what the Supreme court ruled 9-0 about I’m the one that posted it to combat you saying that the Law was unconstitutional.

  157. victor May 26, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    Until the USA goes back to the policy of “if terrorists in another country attack us, if the people of that country do not condemn them and turn them over to us, we will bomb them all as guilty by association.” We will continue to be attacked. Clinton was at fault for creating thousands of terrorists. Terrorists are the cowards of there village, that go around and talk a big game about unattainable goals (like bombing the USA) When The “black hawk down” incident happened in Somalia and we did nothing, America’s “liberal” view was that we were there on a peacekeeping mission and the noble thing was not to retaliate. The middle east’s view, was America has become fat, rich and lazy like Sodom and Gomorrah (yes it’s in the Q’Ran as “View of Lot”) and they were weak not to retaliate. American tv didn’t show in GRAPHIC DETAIL what the Somalians did, like the middle east tv stations. They showed over 30 minutes of footage for months. Then we did nothing after the Cole bombing. That catapulted the cowards and rejects of the village into extremists, and thats where we are today.

  158. Blazen May 27, 2010 at 8:25 am

    “They always have. They always will because it is written into this law. Tell me which section says that local LE has that authority…”

    Actually you are correct, I was simply trying to keep it short. I was in LE and know the procedure.

    Far to many people here can’t even understand the simplest concepts. I really didn’t want to confuse them by giving a detailed description of release procedures. The last department I worked for ran all arrestees through INS before release. INS made the call on whether they wanted them or not.

  159. Blazen May 27, 2010 at 8:37 am

    “Ever since 1986, Border Patrol can ask anyone to present their green card because legal immigrants MUST have it in their possesion at all times, as per 8 USC, 1304(d)”

    Now carefully read what your wrote

    “GREEN CARD”

    and

    “because legal immigrants MUST have it in their possesion at all times”

    Keywords

    “Immigrants must have”

    True, Green card holders must carry their green cards with them all the time.

    Unfortunately this new law in practice means that everybody including legal US citizen in AZ will also have to carry and present proof of citizenship not just Green card holders.

    The AZ law automatically presumes guilt! Anyone who cannot provide the proper documentation is automatically considered and illegal alien.

    • Bill June 13, 2010 at 11:46 am

      Blazen, I am looking at http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1304.html now.

      I do not see any requirement for aliens to carry documentation with them at all time. Also, you are under the false impression that all aliens have documentation. Up until very recently, aliens were regularly allowed into the US with no documentation at all. Canadian’s are allowed to visit up to six months at a time. Even now that a passport or secure ID is required to cross the border, passports are rarely stamped with a date of entry, and there is no legal requirement to keep those items in one’s possession at all times.

      Not too long ago, I drove to the US for a business trip. When I got to the boarder, I found I had accidentally grabbed my son’s passport instead of my own. The border guard accepted my drivers license as identification and allowed me to enter the US.

      In my case, I’m a dual citizen, so I’m not required to carry identification anyway. Of course I normally do so, unless I am going somewhere that it could be stolen, or I am wearing something without pockets.

      Bill

      • Bob June 13, 2010 at 5:01 pm

        Bill,
        8 USC Section 1304(e)
        Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

        Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

        That’s the Federal law, and it’s been in effect since 1986.

        Link:
        http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1304.html

  160. Bob May 28, 2010 at 12:46 am

    @ Blazen

    “…everybody including legal US citizen in AZ will also have to carry and present proof of citizenship not just Green card holders.

    The AZ law automatically presumes guilt!”

    Not really. It requires reasonable suspicion, not presumed guilt. It’s printed right there in section 2 Part B. When you used the words “presumes guilt”, you really should have been phrased it as “suspicion” of another violation (traffic stop, drunk in public, burglary, DWI, burned out headlight, loitering, vagrancy, etc). The Arizona cops will not be in the position of making anyone prove citizenship. That’s ICE’s job, not local LEO, and it’s been that way for 24 years…

    Speaking of vagrancy, I cannot think of a single municipality that doesn’t have some form of an anti-vagrancy law, which requires some money on your person and some form of ID. Vagrancy laws have been in force for a long, long, long time. Would that equate to this new law? Yup. You should have expressed outrage years ago…

    • Blazen May 29, 2010 at 8:04 am

      Read the law because its in there. The AZ law automatically presumes guilt!”

      It does this by automatically assuming that a person is an Illegal alien if they can’t proved the required ID.

      Bob Wrote

      “Speaking of vagrancy, I cannot think of a single municipality that doesn’t have some form of an anti-vagrancy law”

      Bob you might might want to review Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) and Lawson v. Kolender, 658 F.2d 1362 (1981)

      I’ll save you a bit of research, heres a brief.

      “Lawson challenged California Penal Code §647(e),[1] which required persons who loiter or wander on the streets to identify themselves and account for their presence when requested by a peace officer to do so. A California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal. App.3d 429, had construed the law to require “credible and reliable” identification that carries a “reasonable assurance” of its authenticity”

      The court ruled

      “that the law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave excessive discretion to the police (in the absence of probable cause to arrest) whether to stop and interrogate a suspect or leave him alone.[2] The Court hinted that the California statute compromised the constitutional right to freedom of movement”

      and

      The Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Lawson v. Kolender, 658 F.2d 1362 (1981). The Ninth Circuit had additionally held that Penal Code §647(e) violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures because it “subverts the probable cause requirement” by authorizing arrest for conduct that is no more than suspicious.

      And for your reference here is the relevant part of California Penal Code §647(e) read it and weep :0

      “Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: . . . (e) who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify himself and to account for his presence when requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identification.”

      Keep in mind this law was ruled unconstitutional.

      Once again read it and weep 🙂

      “who refuses to identify himself and to account for his presence when requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identification.”

      It looks like Lawson v. Kolender could be the fatal nail in the coffin for the new AZ law. The only way I can see it not being struck down is if AZ legislators remove “Lawful Stop” requirement and replace it with “arrest” or “detention” and also remove the relevant section that presume a person is an illegal alien if they don’t provide acceptable ID.

  161. Bob May 29, 2010 at 10:04 am

    @ Blazen
    “The AZ law automatically presumes guilt”

    I have looked again and again for the phrase “The suspect shall be presumed guilty until proven innocent” in this law, but I cannot locate it. Please cite the section in the code to which you are referring.

    Thanks.

    • Blazen May 29, 2010 at 4:26 pm

      Hi Bob

      “I have looked again and again for the phrase “The suspect shall be presumed guilty until proven innocent”

      Well Bob thats your first mistake you’re looking for a specific phrase and ignoring the intent.

      Keep in mind that not everything in a presumed If/Then situation needs to be spelled out in excruciating detail.

      If the “IF” is spelled out then the “Then” is derived directly from the “IF”.

      For example

      In a traffic stop “IF” the driver provides the officer with a valid license and the officer can not verify said license, the license is automatically presumed valid.

      Do they really need to waste space explaining the obvious. I mean It’s obvious that if the driver does not provide a valid license the driver is then presumed unlicensed.

      You see Bob as a former LEO. My interpretation of this section is a working interpretation. Not a philosophical one. So when you read the law look for the “IF”

      Here is the relevant section of AZ law (The IF section)

      “A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States “IF” the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency[list of acceptable ID’s]”.

      Since no specific “then” is provided. the then is directly inferred from the intent of “IF”

      If someone DOES NOT provide this identification, they ARE presumed to be an alien.

    • Blazen May 29, 2010 at 4:43 pm

      Hi Bob

      “I have looked again and again for the phrase “The suspect shall be presumed guilty until proven innocent”

      Well Bob thats your first mistake you’re looking for a specific phrase and ignoring the intent.

      Keep in mind that not everything in a presumed If/Then situation needs to be spelled out in excruciating detail.

      If the “IF” is spelled out then the “Then” is derived directly from the intent of the “IF”.

      For example

      In a traffic stop “IF” the driver provides the officer with a valid license and the officer can not verify said license, the license is automatically presumed valid.

      Do they really need to waste space explaining the obvious. I mean It’s obvious that if the driver does not provide a valid license the driver is then presumed unlicensed.

      You see Bob as a former LEO. My interpretation of this section is a working interpretation. Not a philosophical one. So when you read the law look for the “IF”

      Here is the relevant section of AZ law (The IF section)

      “A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States “IF” the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency[list of acceptable ID’s]”.

      Since no specific “then” is provided. the then is directly inferred from the intent of “IF”

      which clearly means that
      If someone DOES NOT provide this identification, they ARE presumed to be an alien.

  162. […] Chavez was an immigration hawk on all fronts. He was the original sloganeer behind the catchphrase “Yes we can!” Except he said it in Spanish, Sí, se puede. Was he a racist for opposing illegal immigration? Was he anti-immigrant? Of course not. He argued a well-principled position and a humane one. He was no more racist then the vast overwhelming majority of Americans that support the new immigration law in Arizona. […]

  163. […] reviewed the text of the Arizona law (part 1 is here and that links to the other parts) and found it a tad authoritarian.  The law […]

  164. Further Analysis of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law | Musings of Captain Justice June 6, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    […] via Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 1 | KEYTLaw. […]

  165. s June 10, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    This is depressing, are we as a nation so fearful and sheepish as to be conditioned a’la Pavlovian style to believe that even 5 year olds need to carry some form of ID with them, and it’s a GOOD IDEA? This is soooooo how the Veri-chip will get it’s strong hold, so that everyone can spare carrying their wallets every where, hence them mentioning it in the bill as being NOT related… The fall of our economy is due to the same ones that caused the fall of their’s, not ‘illegal immigrants’, but unscrupulous debt machines and corporations.

    Check out this documentary for more details….

    (About the flaws of neo-classical economics, and the debt trap set up by having no sovereign currency)

    http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_59874.shtml

    (Please pardon my shoddy grammar, and don’t take offense, I don’t like what they are doing to ALL OF US- this problem transcends national borders)

  166. Barry June 11, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    LOL Mark – calling me ignorant. You spent time fighting for this country, I believe you. Unfortunately you never learned to game plan of what it was you were fighting for. Thanks for your hard and sincere work, but you might want to understand what the nature of freedom actually is now that you have fought for it.

    May I suggest that you start with the Magna Carta of 1215 (800th anniversary coming up very soon!), read through folks like John Locke, then papers like Common Sense, the Constitutional debates, the Federalist *and* anti-Federalist papers. Review and study scholarly discussions of all of those, instead of taking it completely on yourself understand.

    Then you come back and tell me if you feel less ignorant of what you fought for after all that than you do now.

    And when you are done with all that, please be sure to tell us where, in all that nation-foundation, it talks about the government of the US being able to specify ID rules on people, even citizens, on where the police and not the courts get to decide who stays in jail and who doesn’t, and all the other things I listed long ago.

    My understanding is that the 800 year history, full of written documentation I only gave you a smidgen of just now, has completely the opposite train of thought – that government derives its power from the people, that people are citizens, not subject of the government.

    And at the heart of it, that is what you fought for – to preserve that most fundamental part of the US – that the government derives its power from the people, not the other way around.

    If you can find it otherwise in those fundamental documents, please do point them out to me. I will stake the chances of my ignorance against yours on the true nature of liberty any time.

    So there you have it – put up or shut up, and thanks for the fighting even if you missed the point.

  167. Bill June 13, 2010 at 11:32 am

    The two main problems I have with AZ law, is: 1. It should not be necessary. Immigration is a federal issue, not a state issue. If federal laws are lacking, those are the laws to fix. 2. As I read the law, it can lead to indefinite detainment without charges.

    For example, lets say I’m visiting the state and I am pulled in for questioning because I match the description of a serial rapist. I’ve seen enough of court TV to know sometimes police are simply looking for someone to pin a crime on so they look good. So I decided to invoke my right to remain silent. Before being detained I happened to mention I was visiting from Canada to someone, so they have reasonable cause to believe I am an alien.

    Since I have invoked my right to remain silent they cannot determine my identity, much less my status, so they law requires them to detain me indefinitely.

  168. swifty June 14, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    The whole point is, all these poster that read “enough is enough”(bye the opposing parties to this new/old law couldn’t be more closer to the truth. “Enough IS Enough”, your free ride is over..FINALLY! Stop trying to beat the system as you always have in the past by stealing identities and social securities numbers and do it the right/legal way!, we have had “ENOUGH”. O bide by OUR LAWS and we wont have to have this repetitive conversation.

  169. Barry June 14, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    I wonder of “Swifty” is one of those who thinks total command of English should be a requirement for citizenship?

    There are a pretty surprising number of grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors in that 1 paragraph post! Too many to allow him or her to rest comfortably knowing what we know that posters on this thread and elsewhere demand of people whose English is not perfect!

  170. Bob June 14, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    @ Barry,

    Since you have apparently adopted the role of the spelling and grammar police for this thread, you may start by revising your own fragmented sentence:

    “Too many to allow him or her to rest comfortably knowing what we know that posters on this thread and elsewhere demand of people whose English is not perfect!”

    Huh?

    Afterwards, you can start by resisting personal attacks and remaining faithful to the debate at hand. Personal attacks do not contribute anything to the debate other than soliciting additional hate and discontent.

    Even I, of humble origins, can see Swifty’s point and I can even resist directing a personal attack towards the poster.

    Those who live in glass houses… well, you know the rest…

    @ Swifty,

    I agree. If immigrants were to abide by our laws, nobody will ever have had a need to force the Federal Government to enforce their own 24 year-old laws.

    Peace.

  171. Barry June 15, 2010 at 10:20 am

    @Bob –

    Before you accuse me of being the “grammar police”, you might want to review your own post of June 3.

    If you can’t understand my previous post, then no wonder you are not persuading anybody that you understand anything that anyone has written on this forum.

    As one of the earliest posters on this thread, I know that you haven’t understood my point, which, briefly, is this:

    The law is unambiguous in that it requires CITIZENS such as me, and I assume you, Bob, to prove their citizenship before they can be released on any arrest in AZ once the law takes effect.

    Now, it may well be that for most citizens, it is trivial to meet the requirements, but the fact is, having such requirements is the antithesis of the 800 year thread of freedom dating back to the Magna Carta, with a direct line to the entire range of history in the United States.

    The AZ law tosses all that out, and for what purpose are some of you willing to forget all of that?

    To assuage your racist hate for Mexicans, based apparently on the notion that there is only a certain amount of freedom in the world, and if you don’t protect yours someone else will take it away.

    Me, I think the amount of possible freedom in the world and in the US is not limited, that my freedom and yours is affirmed and enhanced when others come here to take part in the American Dream, and I don’t appreciate folks like Bob or the Governor of AZ limiting my 800 year old freedom for any purposes whatsoever.

  172. Bob June 15, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    @ Barry,

    I said, in very plain English, “Probably just a typo…” since the “e” was missing as the very first letter. I did not go into a rant about his grammatical background, nor whether he spoke English properly. I was merely correcting an obvious typographical error. There is a difference between highlighting an obvious typo and personally attacking somebody because they never aced their English classes in school.

    As far as your accusation that I am a racist,

    quote: “To assuage your racist hate for Mexicans…”

    where in the heck did that come from? Personal attacks will get you nowhere… Don’t put words into my mouth, Barry. I am not a racist. That seems to be the gut reaction from anyone who does not agree with either the current administration or this AZ law- opponents of either must therefore be racists. What a flawed pathway of logical thought and reasoning.

    I have never said I hate Mexicans. I simply do not like ANYONE (no matter what country they are from) who breaks our laws and does not respect our borders, including Obama’s aunt, who somehow magically got a free pass rather than being shipped back home like any other Joe Blow would have been treated.

    As far as your American Dream, you still have it, Barry, until our taxes go so ridiculously high in 2014 that you cannot afford a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas. You have it. I have it. Your neighbor has it. An 18 year-old computer whiz kid has it. Everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. The process, however, takes a lot of hard work, dedication, commitment, sacrifice, eating a lot of beans in order to pay the house payment, and even some smarts to pull it off.

    I do not mind others coming here to partake in the American dream. That is what makes our country great. My wife did it over 40 years ago and now she is living the American Dream. The difference is that she did it legally…

    Finally, anyone who is arrested, no matter in what state they are arrested, undergoes an identity verification process. This has been going on for decades, Barry, and you darn well know that. This is to ensure that the person arrested is not wanted in another country and has fled here to avoid a foreign trial. That has been Federal policy for as long as I can remember.

    Federal policy… You get arrested in West Memphis, Arkansas- identity verification. You get arrested in Detroit, Michigan- identity verification. You get arrested in Nome, Alaska- identity verification.

    It keeps the criminals who are dodging Interpol (or any other foreign LEO) from being harbored here if they have fingerprints on file overseas.

    Finally, your American freedom is not 800 years old. Our country has only been in existence since 1788. The Constitution was created on September 17, 1787 and ratified 9 months later in the summer of 1788. The Magna Carta, to which you refer, applied to English subjects under the rule of King John, and it limited King John’s powers once he signed it. America wasn’t even a gleam in anyone’s eye at that point.

    Several of the Magna Carta’s ideals influenced our Constitution, such as the 5th and 6th Amendments and Habeas corpus, but our forefathers did not use a verbatim replication of the text of the Magna Carta (probably because it was written in Latin). The Constitution, not the Magna Carta, is the law of our land.

  173. Barry June 16, 2010 at 7:37 am

    @Bob –

    You don’t have to *say* you are a racist, your words betray you. No one ever says they are a racist, it is their words and actions that speak for them.

    In your case,you would agree with laws that:

    1) Usurp Federal powers by States
    2) Remove long held and cherished freedoms from Americans

    and you justify it in order to impose actions and requirements on people because of the color of their skin and their national origin.

    I am comfortable with the word *racist* to describe these actions, and I am sorry it applies to you or any individual. I’d rather there simply not be racists working to take my rights away – or anyone working to take my rights away for that matter, than to have to speak truth to power.

    > Finally, anyone who is arrested, no matter in what state they are arrested, undergoes an identity verification process. This has been going on for decades, Barry, and you darn well know that.

    We have been over and over this, and I don’t know it, because your reasoning is fallacious and fantasy at the same time.

    Showing identification is not the same as proving citizenship. Period. Which part of that is not clear?

    If it were the same,the law would not be necessary.

    Not that it is necessary, but it would clearly be duplicative. It is not.

    I have recently learned that in the mid to late 1990s, Californians passed a Proposition, whose terms were largely similar to the AZ law. Note that it has never gone into effect, because there was an immediate Federal injunction. Why would there be an injunction if the stripping of rights, the grab of Federal powers, is legal in all aspects?

    > This is to ensure that the person arrested is not wanted in another country and has fled here to avoid a foreign trial. That has been Federal policy for as long as I can remember.

    That is the funniest thing I ever heard. You think local law enforcement is doing the bidding of some other sovereign nation every time they arrest some mook for shoplifting at the corner store?

    I am sure you will be able to point to the Federal law, and corresponding State laws that impose this obligation on every law enforcement agency and/or Court in the land.

    Or perhaps we have a treaty with every nation on earth obliging us to see if our criminals are wanted elsewhere?

    Since you seem to know so much about this, and are so certain, please share your citations and proof, as I have never heard as bizarre a claim in my entire life.

    But be aware that if you can’t provide citations, weasel words won’t cut it. You will be exposed as not understanding the law in the least, and the effect of that should be to alarm you that maybe some of your opinions that are based on the way you think the law works are on shaky ground too, at best, and that they are hilarious howlers at worst.

    Good luck finding the evidence that doesn’t exist, and I hope your mirror is shined up.

    > Finally, your American freedom is not 800 years old. Our country has only been in existence since 1788. The Constitution was created on September 17, 1787 and ratified 9 months later in the summer of 1788. The Magna Carta, to which you refer, applied to English subjects under the rule of King John, and it limited King John’s powers once he signed it. America wasn’t even a gleam in anyone’s eye at that point.

    More tomfoolery. For example, everyone knows our country has been an independent nation since 1776, even the youngest schoolchildren are taught this. Perhaps you have heard of “The “Declaration of Independence”?

    As for 1788, I can’t even guess the significance of that year to you. It is not the year the Constitution was ratified and took effect, in case you think that was the start of our country (it wasn’t).

    Our freedoms are NOT “American”. They are inherent human rights. They are not allowed us by the government, in fact the American government exist only to the extent that powers are granted it by the people, not the other way around.

    This is the difference between being a citizen of a sovereign nation and a subject of one.

    Do you understand the difference? Being American, and supporting a law that takes away rights, I would hope you have internalized the difference, but I fear you have not. Otherwise you would not act as thought he government reigns over its citizens, when it plainly does not. In the US, the government answers to the people, not the other way around as in many if not most other countries.

    As for the Magna Carta, allow me to school you briefly on this (again, as I have discussed this upthread too).

    The US, its system of rights and did not spring wholesale out of nothingness. Briefly summarizing a lot of history, our laws and rights and philosophy of government are derived from English common law, and the discussions of philosophy of government that our Founders had studied and well understood. These philosophical treaties dated back at least to the Renaissance.

    English Common law has as its foundation the Magna Carta, particularly the concept of Habeus Corpus – that the government does not have a right to separate a citizen from his or her rights.

    In the end analysis, the Colonies separated from England because the people here, including the Founders, were aggrieved that their rights to Habeus Corpus and derived rights (many of which are listed in the Bill of Rights) were being unfairly restricted by the Crown.

    So yes, your rights as you know them in the US today, (or don’t know them, it doesn’t matter, regardless) are in fact derived from a very direct line starting with the Magna Carta.

    Again, this is so patently obvious to anyone who has done even the minimal amount of study into the nature and origin of our Rights, of our Form of Government, that when you assert otherwise, when you assert that the AZ law does not restrict any rights, and pretty much everything else you say, you expose yourself as uneducated and not to be taken seriously by any readers.

    Now, I don’t doubt you hold your beliefs very strongly. It is just that their is no rational basis for them, no matter how much you flail about asserting that there is.

    So we are left as readers to know that your approach, and those of others in support of the AZ law, are based purely irrational impulses.

    Like the color of the skin or the nation of origin of people you are afraid of. And there is a word for that. Perhaps you can tell us what it is?

    • Bob June 17, 2010 at 10:18 pm

      @ Barry

      “You don’t have to *say* you are a racist, your words betray you… it is their words and actions that speak for them.”

      “Racist?” You just won’s stop with your personal attacks directed towards me, which contribute absolutely nothing to this thread. That appears to me to be an act of desperation. What in the heck are you ranting about? I am not a racist, and this point is dead- period. Nice try, but it won’t work

      “impose actions and requirements on people because of the color of their skin and their national origin.”

      “Actions?” You do not know whether I am black, white, or blue. You do not know my eye color, my hair color (or if I have any) or if I have all of my fingers on my right hand. You do not know me- period. Thus, don’t be prejudicial based on some dreamed-up fantasy of yours.

      OK. Barry. Please point out where, in any of my posts, that I have eluded to your fantasy where I opined that any illegal invaders belong to any particular race. Where have I said anything about the color of an illegal invader’s skin? You are hallucinating. I think you want me to be racist, but I’m not. Sorry. Invaders come in many colors. Haitian. Cuban. Russian. Boat people (several countries). Iranian. heck, they could be freaking Canadians or Aussies for all I care… So, pick your color or nationality, Barry. I am not picking out one race- they are all not welcome unless they do it the right way and get in the freaking line and immigrate legally like my wife, her mother, and her grandmother did.

      These illegal invaders could be little green men from the bottom of the ocean and I would still want them to respect our laws and our sovereignty. You are on a fishing expedition.

      You know, about 2 or 3 weeks ago, I posted my proposed solution regarding the whole border issue, and I also put out a challenge to anyone on this site to post their own solutions, as well. I notice that you have refused to put one out there for all to see. Thus, to save your precious time, I have created a Barry Border Proposal for you.

      You can begin by putting a sign at all of our borders telling anyone coming in from the North or South that Barry’s house is a safe haven and that you will be more than happy to let them break your household budget. In addition, I think you should write a letter to your Mayor, commanding him to proclaim your city to be an unlimited illegal invader-populated sanctuary city. Put your money where your mouth is, Barry, and take these illegal budget-busters off our state’s drained budget and put them on yours…

      By employing the Barry Border Plan, anyone who breaks our law will know that they are welcome in your city and in your household, and will be protected from any prosecution as long as they stay there.

      Now, I will succinctly divulge your history lesson, since you may have slept in a few of your 7th grade US History classes. (As a side note, I loved learning about our Revolutionary War, and it was my favorite college class.)

      We were at war with the British between 1775-1783. We declared our independence from them in 1776, but the war did not end at that time. The hostilities (which, by this time, had involved several other countries around the world- such as Gibraltar and the West Indies) actually ended domestically when the few British troops where still housed in NYC and a couple of southern ports finally went home once the Paris treaty was signed in 1783.

      We were a nation (country), but we were not a de facto Government. If you think we were a country, then please tell me: who was our President in 1786? Who was his Speaker of the House? Who was the V.P.?

      Quoting you:

      “As for 1788, I can’t even guess the significance of that year to you. It is not the year the Constitution was ratified and took effect”

      My jaw dropped when I read that. You claim to be such a staunch expert on the Constitution, yet you do not even know when it was signed or what year it was ratified. I guess you must have slept through your 7th grade history classes.

      Let me refresh your memory…
      Our Constitution, which established our Government (notice I said government and not nation) was drawn up in Philadelphia during (get this…) the Constitutional Convention, which convened in the spring (May) of 1787. During the next4 months, the delegates came up with several “flavors” of our founding document, such as the New Jersey Plan, Connecticut Plan, Hamilton Plan, and more.

      By mid-September, the document was signed and submitted to the 13 colonies for ratification. 9 months later (which my 2nd grade math teacher taught me…) was the summer of (wait… here it comes…) 1788! In fact, June 21, 1788, to be more precise, was when ratification became official because only 9 of the 13 colonies needed to approve it for it to become officially ratified. New Hampshire was the state which put the vote over the top…

      The delegates got word of New Hampshire’s ratification and agreed that the following March, 1789, would be when our newly-formed de facto government would officially actually begin operations. Eventually, all 13 colonies ratified the Constitution, although the vote was close in a few states.

      I guess that year may not have any significance to you, but it means a whole lot to me. That’s the year that rights and freedoms, which I still enjoy today, were bestowed upon US citizens, some of which were inspired by the Magna Carta (per: our previous discussions).

      If 1788 does not have any significance to you, the what year does Barry think our Constitution was actually ratified? Please provide your (ahem) source, keeping in mind that only 9 states were actually needed for ratification.

      Here’s my source about the Constitution so you can read up on it, because, apparently, you need to:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States

      Now I will address your two closing fragmented sentences and a statement ending with a question mark:

      “Like the color of the skin or the nation of origin of people you are afraid of. And there is a word for that. Perhaps you can tell us what it is?”

      A simple dictionary would call that Xenophobia, Barry, and it does not apply to me, nor my olive-skinned Italian wife, which is a stark contrast to my darker skin. I think you need some psychological help, Barry. Who in the hell do you think I am afraid of? I am not afraid of anyone. I do, however, detest illegal invaders (no matter what their skin color or national origin- despite your wildest fantasies) and those employers who support them. Since you possess psychic skills, please point out to me who I am afraid of.

      Finally, if you don’t have anything to say, then say nothing and let the personal attacks cease if you can manage to practice some restraint. I am not a racist, not even in your wildest fantasies.

      As the late Paul Harvey would say, “Good Day”.

  174. Barry June 18, 2010 at 8:52 am

    @Bob –

    Not racist? You are spending months here arguing for the support of a law targeted towards Mexicans, Mexicans have a different skin color than the vast majority of those supporting the law, and likely different from you also. You offer no substantive reason to support your views, despite months of scribbling. If the shoe fits…

    > Where have I said anything about the color of an illegal invader’s skin?

    When you support a law targeted towards Mexicans who are in Arizona, and the wider argument is that our border with Mexico is not being protected properly by the Federal government, then the argument is clearly about Mexicans.

    One of the distinguishing visible characteristic of the majority of Mexicans is the color of their skin, and there is a long history in the US of discrimination against foreigners and locals based on the color of their skin and noting more, despite claims such as your otherwise. Need I school you on that history?

    But if it makes you feel better, I will change my description of you from racist to xenophobe, because your reasoning is based on fear of people from another country, rather than trying to understand the wider truth, you lash out in fear.

    There is a scientific name for people like you too: “Right Wing Authoritarians”. google it, you will find a shocking mirror of yourself and others sharing your views. Maybe you will realize how unfair and self-centered your views about others are and change.

    > Invaders come in many colors. Haitian. Cuban. Russian. Boat people (several countries). Iranian. heck, they could be freaking Canadians or Aussies for all I care…

    You call people “invaders”? That is evidence of your xenophobia right there. Our country is and always has been welcome to people who come here fro a better life. You might want to look up the poem at the Statue of Liberty…you will note there are no exceptions listed, certainly not “bring me yoru poor your tired your wretched etc. EXCEPT IF THEY ARE MEXICANS”.

    And our history, which you have still failed to rebut, is that CITIZENS have rights which are abridged unlawfully by the AZ law should it go into effect. Why not focus on that instead of crying you are not a racist? If you can make a decent counter-argument, isn’t now a good time to do so? What are you waiting for?

    > I notice that you have refused to put one out there for all to see

    You notice very wrong, as usual. My solution is to obey the laws and rights of people. Well, solution implies there is a problem. I don’t necessarily agree there is a problem that needs a “solution”. That case is far from made in my mind.

    > You can begin by putting a sign at all of our borders telling anyone coming in from the North or South that Barry’s house is a safe haven and that you will be more than happy to let them break your household budget. In addition, I think you should write a letter to your Mayor, commanding him to proclaim your city to be an unlimited illegal invader-populated sanctuary city. Put your money where your mouth is, Barry, and take these illegal budget-busters off our state’s drained budget and put them on yours…

    OK, I will do precisely that if you grant me the full powers of the sovereign that go along with it.

    Then I will repeal the AZ law and related efforts, and, leaving the status quo, will revert the sovereign powers to the way it was before. But folks like you, such as the AZ governor, will spend about 20 years in re-education camps so you learn what you missed in school about our form of government 🙂

    > If you think we were a country, then please tell me: who was our President in 1786? Who was his Speaker of the House? Who was the V.P.?

    We had a different form of government prior to the one we have now. Perhaps you have heard of the “Continental Congress”? Perhaps you know that it was not sufficiently effective, and that was why there was a Constitutional Convention.

    > I guess that year may not have any significance to you, but it means a whole lot to me.

    Fair enough. I prefer the 1789 date of effectiveness as the watershed, but I understand that you might prefer 1788.

    > Who in the hell do you think I am afraid of? I am not afraid of anyone.

    Then why precisely are you working to restrict MY (and your own!) rights,which you claim to hold so precious since 1788, having finally conceded my point about Magna Carta, simply to restrict some Mexicans from coming to this country?

    Like I said, if you feel more comfortable being called a xenophobe instead of a racist, I am probably OK with that.

    > I do, however, detest illegal invaders

    See, there is your xenophobia (and maybe racism too) – you call people “invaders” as though there is an organized Army. I am sure you can describe a metaphorical and hence imaginary “army”, but there is no Mexican invading Army.

    Even so, as a self-procaimed student of history, you ought to be able to recognize that when there are disputes between our nation and other nations, the appropriate channel for resolution is Diplomacy, not the recision of rights domestically.

    It is small thinkers like you (and the AZ Governor) who hate Americans and our freedoms more than anything that would take rights away because that is the best solution you can find to what is in fact a problem in the diplomatic realm.

    Well, I personally prefer to keep my rights, whether I am using them or not, because our domestic history is full of people like you who will jettison them on my behalf at the drop of dime.

    Since you are such a great student of the Constitution then you are surely aware that the main struggle during the Constitutional Convention was to create a lasting form of government that would prevent tyranny of the majority.

    The argument you and your ilk make with regards to “invaders” is precisely what the Founders anticipated and worked against, it is precisely “tyranny of the majority” that you are advocating.

    And that argument of your, at its heart, is simply is un-American, far more un-American than Mexicans coming here for a better economic life, like hundreds of millions from around the world before them.

    > Since you possess psychic skills, please point out to me who I am afraid of.

    I don’t have psychic skills – I don’t believe in woo like that – but I can say based on your own words, you are afraid of the American ideal as put forth by our Founders, and practiced and perfected over time by all Americans.

    > I am not a racist, not even in your wildest fantasies.

    That is true – in my wildest fantasy, you realize the errors of your way, you learn to love the rights you and others have, and you become incapable of thoughts that lead to enacting laws that will take away rights from Americans in some misguided attempt to stop “invaders” who are not there.

    • Bob June 18, 2010 at 10:40 pm

      Barry,

      In order to save you some time, I tracked down the link I had for the story about the terrorists who were released from Mexican prisons who sneaked across our border but were captured on the US Side. The details start at about 2:00 into the video. 45 were from Pakistan, 24 were from Iraq, 30 were from Afghanistan. This is something you wont hear on your basic national evening news.

      It’s something to really think about. Do you remember 9-11?

      Link to story:
      http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html

  175. Bob June 18, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    @ Barry
    “support of a law targeted towards Mexicans”

    When the first premise of a line of reasoning or logic is false, then subsequent premises which are based on that false premise are also false. (Logic and Analysis 101)

    Nowhere in the law does it state that this law is targeted towards Mexicans. Please cite the code that states that. Your first premise is false. Thus, I’ll toss out the rest of the paragraph based on that reasoning. The law is targeted towards anyone who is here illegally- Mexican or otherwise.
    .
    .
    “your reasoning is based on fear of people from another country”

    Wrong. My reasoning is based on the fact that 20 MILLION people are here illegally, and more are sneaking in smuggling people and drugs every day. I do not fear people from another country. I do detest, however, armed thugs, drug dealers, and terrorists who illegally come here. I guess you missed the link I posted upthread about the known terrorist who successfully sneaked across the border and was recently spotted in Atlanta. Maybe he could move in next door to you and you guys could be buddies and live happily after after.

    We are a nation of immigrants. I married one. I do not fear anyone from a foreign country. I married one. My best man at our wedding is from Thailand. I do not fear him. I respect him because he did it the right way-legally. Once again, the first premise in your logic is false, so I will throw out the rest of the paragraph.
    .
    .
    “you lash out in fear”
    (laughs) yeah… right. Nice try, but not true.

    It’s not fear, Barry. It’s called “anger”. I lash out in anger that so many illegal immigrants are pouring over our porous borders and stealing clothes off of people’s clotheslines, killing their cows and pigs and chickens, stealing their cars, stealing their horses, burglarizing their schools, burglarizing their homes, threatening them at gunpoint, and killing some of them. (see links below)
    .
    .
    “You call people “invaders”? That is evidence of your xenophobia right there. Our country is and always has been welcome to people who come here fro a better life”

    You seem to think I am opposed to immigration. You are dead wrong. I am opposed to illegal immigrants. There is a distinct difference which I think you don’t see. I concur with your statement that our country has always been welcome to people who come here for a better life. Ellis Island processed millions of them. Some were denied permission due to diseases or other rejection criteria of that era. The rest of them used the system the right way and were allowed to stay and enjoy the freedom and opportunity America provided to them. Lee Iaccoca (son of Italian immigrants) and Albert Einstein (immigrated in 1933, took oath in 1940) are two immigrants who come to mind. I do not “fear” them. I extol them for doing it the right way. I do not “fear” immigrants. Sorry…

    Yes, I call them invaders. What word would you use to describe 20 million people crossing into Kuwait or 20 million people crossing into France without their government’s permission? If that is not an invasion, then please tell me what it is. It’s not exactly an invitation to come over for a Sunday picnic and head home afterwards… There are millions of legal immigrants here, for which I am very happy to see. Most of them decide to become full-fledged citizens, take an oath of allegiance and want to contribute to our society and live the American Dream. I married one.
    .
    .
    “Why not focus on that instead of crying you are not a racist?”
    I’d like to, but you are the one who keeps falsely calling me a racist. I’d actually like to drop that whole falsehood once and for all.
    .
    .
    “I don’t necessarily agree there is a problem that needs a “solution”
    You don’t think we have a border problem? Do you think we should just tear down the fences and open our borders to everyyone and turn our great country into another Somalia? Everyone there is free to to as they please without any governmental intervention. Maybe we could go there for a nice vacation sometime. Yeah, that’s a great place to live, eh?
    .
    .
    “simply to restrict some Mexicans from coming to this country?”
    Mexicans? No- we need to simply stop anybody, regardless of nationality, from coming into this country illegally. Why do you keep referring to Mexicans as the only ones who may be affected by this bill? Illegals come in all nationalities and all races, including Caucasian.
    .
    .
    “if you feel more comfortable being called a xenophobe instead of a racist, I am probably OK with that”

    No, actually I am not OK with being called either one, since neither one describes me. I have not called you a (insert left-wing/right-wing) wacko. I have not called you a (insert Klansman or Black Muslim). I have not called you a racist. I have not called you a (insert neocon or commie). I have not called you a pacifist. In fact, I have not called you anything other than delusional once (I think it was in one of my first posts, but I gladly let that thread die a slow death…) At that point in that thread, I did not think my comment was a personal attack, but, rather, an observation based on your writings and thoughts I had perceived at that point. I do not, however, feel that way at this point in time. You are not delusional.
    .
    .
    “small thinkers like you… who hate Americans”
    That sure came out of left field. First, I am not a small thinker. I’ve been a lifetime member MENSA for a long time, and I’ll even fax you a copy of my membership card if you’ll give me your email address (only 2% of the population can pass the entrance tests). I think out of the box- much differently than others who work around me. It drives them nuts. But, most importantly, I do not think I am better than them, I just tell them that I think a little differently, that’s all.

    I can do triple digit multiplication in my head. I have a 3.98 avg in my current college classes (I got an A- in my systems Analysis class). I have written 4 fictional books and 1 non-fictional book, and I am working on another fictional book. (I believe we already discussed this upthread somewhere…) I record my own songs, I play 11 instruments, and I have over 150 songs copyrighted, beginning in 1975. I use my brain to the fullest because I know I will be dead a lot longer than I will be alive, so I want to use the time I have left to do something with my life and my mind.

    Secondly, regarding the statement that I hate Americans, sorry, but you’re wrong. We live in the greatest country on the planet, which is inhabited with millions of great Americans. We are all immigrants, or descendants of immigrants. I love ’em all. Well, most of them. I do not like killers, wife-beaters, child rapists, drug dealers, and drunk drivers ( I see, on average, about 4 or 5 drunks a day because I live and work on the road every single day).

    “Mexicans coming here for a better economic life, like hundreds of millions from around the world before them”

    I am in favor of Mexicans coming here for a better life. I have said that several times. I think it’s an awesome idea. I am actually in favor of immigrants from many parts of the world coming here. That’s what makes our country so great- diversity. I am assuming that you mean the “hundreds of millions before them” who entered the US legally. (Guess that shoots your whole xenophobe malarky down the tubes…)
    .
    .
    Finally, Here’s proof we are being invaded. Perhaps you can move closer to one of our borders and tell these armed drug dealers that you like what they are doing, since you don’t want to raise a finger to resist or stop their onslaught…

    This happened in March. His killer is still at large:
    http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/march-29-2010/arizona-rancher-shot-dead-his-property-near-southwest-border.html

    Quote from a Wall Street Journal article This article will open your eyes, that is, if you want to see the truth about what is happening in Arizona.
    (Link is below):
    Sue Krentz [Robert’s widow] has written pleading letters to politicians, media and others, detailing how the smuggling of drugs and people has become so bad that family members feared for their lives.

    “It’s worse than anybody knows,” rancher Ed Ashurst told me. “There are outlaws roaming around with guns, and if you jack with them they’ll kill you.”

    Wall Street Journal Link:
    http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/april-12-2010/wall-street-journal-story-captures-border-fear.html

    What about Robert’s rights, Barry? Or do you want to just tell his widow that it’s OK because we don’t want to make anyone politically upset? What about Robert’s rights?

  176. Barry June 19, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @Bob –

    Oh so now you just decided to use Logic and analysis? good for you! Now, add an open mind to that, and rebut my initial point that this law takes away the fundamental rights from ordinary citizens like you and me, in the cause of some vague protection form “immigrants” or terrorists as you call them now.

    If that is the premise of your thought, fine, but it is not rational, it is emotional, and as a person with a newfound appreciation of logic, I am sure you appreciate it and see the irony.

    Perhaps, if you want o explain rationally and persuade me why I should sacrifice my very real rights to further your very vague goals, you should make that case explicitly and as logically and as rationally as you can.

    It will be a hoot, an utter failure of course, but it might succeed in an unexpected way – to demonstrate my point to you that your thinking is emotional and not rational. To the minor extent it has any basis in fact, it misapplies them, and moves out of the realm of fact quickly into the realm of conjecture. This you will learn by going through the exercise of trying to make a fully detailed logical analysis. Me on the other hand, I intuit it from experience based on your earlier words. After the exercise, your intuition will be more along the lines of mine.

    So go ahead, by all means impress us with your application of logic to the removal of emotion and irrationality to your position.

    > Nowhere in the law does it state that this law is targeted towards Mexicans

    The effect in the public discussion has been about Mexicans. Do you doubt that? Or are you saying that the concern about “protecting our AZ border is about some other border than the Mexican one? Perhaps there is a problem with Australians, British, or Ghanians that the Arizonans are concerned about.

    My concern, as oft stated, and to which you seem unable or unwilling to respond, is that the law targets US citizens’ long existing rights, and regardless of its effects on citizens of any other nations, that makes it legally, and morally wrong and untenable.

    The only thing that matters to me in this debate is if you can persuade me why *I* should give up my rights, even if it is a minor erosion of them, to assuage yours (and others) existing xenophobia. Perhaps you can start by showing that your xenophobia CAN be assuaged. I kind of doubt that in the course of history, xenophobia, either in individuals, or in population at large, is ever assuaged.

    But when government starts to enact erosions of rights of citizens in order to protect the citizens as a whole from some bogeyman of the day – and there is always some bogey man in every society – then it is very fair practical, not just philosophical question to ask why we have or need rights at all.

    The AZ law, in eroding the rights of ordinary citizens, to allegedly protect against the bogey man of the day – be it Mexicans, terrorists, or whatever – only serves to set precedent that rights are not important, and that they will always be vulnerable whenever a vague assertion of a new bogeyman – or an old one that hasn’t disappeared yet despite the earlier erosion of rights, and that is a VERY slippery slope.

    That is why I suggest very strongly that supporters of this law do not support the value of long existing rights, instead fearing the events of the day as though there haven’t always been similar events, and that those fundamental rights evolved in the face of, and maybe in fact because of, continuous threats of various and sundry bogeymen.

    > I do detest, however, armed thugs, drug dealers, and terrorists who illegally come here

    See, you build bogeyman as an altar on which to sacrifice my rights. Sacrificing my rights is the only solution you can think of to a problem you wildly overstate?

    Really? What other solutions that protect my rights have you tried first? Have you exhausted all possibilities?

    > Once again, the first premise in your logic is false, so I will throw out the rest of the paragraph.

    I am sure you have friends and family members who are immigrants. Most of us do. You might as well say “some of my best friends are Jews”. What you fear is not the individuals that you know, it is the vague collection of the ones you don’t know. In fat, if you made the effort to get to know MORE foreigners, especially the ones you feel the need to legislate against and take your own rights away from in the process, the bogeyman will disappear and other solutions will present themselves.

    > It’s not fear, Barry. It’s called “anger”. I lash out in anger that so many illegal immigrants are pouring over our porous borders and stealing clothes off of people’s clotheslines, killing their cows and pigs and chickens, stealing their cars, stealing their horses, burglarizing their schools, burglarizing their homes, threatening them at gunpoint, and killing some of them. (see links below)

    Ah, so you take people’s rights away in anger at people from other countries. I get it now! But it is not racism!

    As though there were not and are crimes of exactly the same sort in our country committed by citizens!

    > I am opposed to illegal immigrants.

    Then this law, which takes rights away from citizens and legal immigrants alike is the best solution you have? Make the logical case that all other options have been considered, and all possible ideas have been tried, and that our rights are only an illusion to be dumped because suddenly you have been whipped into an angry hysteria by the maddening crowds.

    > Yes, I call them invaders. What word would you use to describe 20 million people crossing into Kuwait or 20 million people crossing into France without their government’s permission?

    Words like nomads or refugees come to mind. But your mind is decided, isn’t it?

    > You don’t think we have a border problem? Do you think we should just tear down the fences and open our borders to everyyone and turn our great country into another Somalia? Everyone there is free to to as they please without any governmental intervention. Maybe we could go there for a nice vacation sometime. Yeah, that’s a great place to live, eh?

    Tell me what it is like to live in such a black and white world, where the only choices are to take away people’s long held fundamental rights to protect against a vague bogeyman, or no government at all? What is the difference between the two, by the way? Why are my rights negotiable just because you, the madding crowd, can not either imagine or implement a better solution?

    > No, actually I am not OK with being called either one, since neither one describes me.

    “Xenophobe” might not mean what you think it means.

    > First, I am not a small thinker.

    You have yet to show any expansive or insightful ability so far. I only have your words to go on.

    All you seem to have is a defense, however mean spirited and weak, of an idea (the AZ law) that you did not think of yourself.

    Maybe you are fairly trying to describe what you perceive as a proble,, and not simply echoing pst hoc what the advocates of the AZ law are putting out there for your consumption, but you are certainly not offering any alternative, large or small variations from the AZ law for consideration.

    To you, it seems to me, that the AZ law, which takes away your rights and mine, which you haven’t disputed, is the ideal solution to the ideal description of the problem. Not really the ideal solution or description, the ONLY solution and description you can conceive. And that is what makes your writings betray you as small-minded – the inability to see other points of view, including the values of long held and cherished rights, the possibility for diplomatic solutions, and any of a zillion others that might result from a reframing of the problem as you describe it. Classic, textbook small mindedness my friend.

    > I use my brain to the fullest because I know I will be dead a lot longer than I will be alive, so I want to use the time I have left to do something with my life and my mind.

    That is an interesting statement at the end of an interesting string of sentences. I note it says nothing about your interactions with other people, only bragging about yourself. Yet the topic here is how we as a society deal with each other. I don’t see anything in your qualifications that you chose to provide that says you have any experience or sensitivity in those matters at all.

    > We live in the greatest country on the planet, which is inhabited with millions of great Americans.

    If you are sooooo-super smart —ooo mensa! – and so in love with Americans, then why can’t you or won’t you see the irrationality of your fear of bogeyman form other countries and your lack of appreciation of the values of our fundamental rights?

    > I am in favor of Mexicans coming here for a better life. I have said that several times. I think it’s an awesome idea. I am actually in favor of immigrants from many parts of the world coming here. That’s what makes our country so great- diversity. I am assuming that you mean the “hundreds of millions before them” who entered the US legally. (Guess that shoots your whole xenophobe malarky down the tubes…)

    You guess wrong. Again. There is clearly an economic disparity between MX and US. In the long run, that is not such a great thing. Both countries would be better off if our economic interests were better aligned.

    Taking away rights from Americans in an effort keep individuals from pursuing what is only natural – a chance at a better economic future – is not a good idea.

    Surely you and your mensa buddies can come up with some other approaches, right?

    And speaking of things you can come up with, with the help of your mesa buddies, maybe you can look at American history and come up with times and places where people came to American, or became American citizens without the benefit of having come through Ellis Island, and with or without the sanction of any laws at the time….you should be able to come up with at least 5 examples, large examples, in just a minute or two.

    > What about Robert’s rights, Barry? Or do you want to just tell his widow that it’s OK because we don’t want to make anyone politically upset? What about Robert’s rights?

    You are crying about one murder, which might or might not have happened the way it is, and you would remove my rights because of it? Sorry, no.

    There are plenty of murders, plenty of them pretty grisly, in our country everywhere, every year. I am sorry for the family in this case, as I am in every case.

    However, I don’t see that this one is so special as to require me to hand over my fundamental rights.

    Nor, if you are so super-mensa-smart, am I going to let you get away with the metaphorical and inflammatory usage of the term “invasion” or “invaders”. You are smart enough to know ti is metaphorical and inflammatory, meant to build up the fear of bogeymen we discussed above.

    Take a deep breath, use your super-mensa-just-under-4.0-gpa brain and step back and analyze your rhetoric, your lack of consideration alternative solutions, or the lack of consideration of the extended implications of the proposed solution to a mis-framing of “the problem”.

    Take a deep breath again, imagine what life is like when you don’t fear people, but seek to understand and work with their motivations, to envision a solution that would be best for all, to create a rising tide that floats all boats, if you will, instead of locking yourself and me in a fort built of isolationism with fewer and lesser rights, while the world goes on.

    Take a 3rd deep breath now Bob, and start to imagine what tools we already have at our disposal, with the might of our government, the potential power of our collective will, of 350 million or so people.

    What ways might you reframe the problem, and apply those tools to craft a solution Bob, instead of whining and yelling about one that was presented to you, all the while telling me how smart you are?

    Yeah Bob, now that we know you are mensa material, or so you say, I am sure you can list all the alternatives, and explain why the AZ law is the best possible solution among all.

    I still wait with bated breath!

  177. Law Help June 24, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Mr. Obama has demagogued against physicians. Remember the surgeon who would saw off a foot for the extra money? He demagogued against health insurance companies. The companies blundered by not fiercely correcting the ignorant and false things the Monster said about health care and its costs. (No tort reform? Of course not. They help to fund the Democrats.) Mr. Obama promised Hope and Change. He gives us Hoax and Chains.

    ________________________________
    Whiteblack

  178. Bob July 16, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    @ Barry
    “immigrants” or terrorists as you call them now.”

    Actually, there are both illegal immigrants AND there are those who are those of the terrorist persuasion- from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Sudan, and more. If you had bothered to watch that video I posted a few weeks ago, you would have seen that Islamic terrorists (along with non-terrorists) are being released daily from Mexican prisons, learning English, and subsequently sneaking across our borders.

    Since our Border Patrol’s own estimates state that they only catch about 10% of all illegal border crossers, that means that the 30 Afghanis who were captured left another 270 comrades who succeeded. Are you sure that those, along with the 60 Pakistanis (540 that made it) and other illegal invaders of a terrorist persuasion, are whom you want to allow to roam free in our country?

    ———–
    Invaders- yes.
    Armed drug cartel runners and armed coyotes have seized about 3,500 acres of US property in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in southern Arizona. That is on OUR side of the border. Well, it was formerly on OUR side of the border. Now they “own” it again. You can read about it here:
    (remove the space after the http)
    http ://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/arizona/buenosaires/PDFs/Closure.pdf

    ———–
    “The effect in the public discussion has been about Mexicans. Do you doubt that?”

    Actually, Barry, I do doubt that, and I have the facts to back me up. According to Homeland Security, only 62% were actually from Mexico. Sorry, Barry, but I guess that shoots your whole “Mexican” argument down the tubes….
    Source:
    (remove the space after the http)
    http ://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf

    Granted, the slim majority of these invaders are Mexican nationals, but the number isn’t even 2/3rds of the total number. It’s about the multiple nationalities who are breaking our laws by crossing the MEXICAN BORDER, since that is the only access point to our south. It’s not just Mexicans, it’s not about Mexico. My God! Don’t you get it? It’s multi-national and multi-racial…

    In fact, why don’t you Google “MS-13” and take a look at those wonderful, youthful pillars of a peaceful society. Maybe you can have some of these folks over for a BBQ someday. Oh, and they’re NOT from Mexico, by the way. I guess that shoots you whole “Mexican-only” argument down the tubes (again). These fine young men would make for some really pleasant neighbors, don’t you think?

    This is not an emotional argument. This is very factual, very real, and is happening right now.

    Here are but just a few sources to see for yourself:
    MS-13 Gang targets Minutemen
    (Remove the space after the http)
    http ://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/mar/28/20050328-125306-7868r/

    Quoting the article:
    “Members of a violent Central America-based gang have been sent to Arizona to target Minuteman Project volunteers.

    About 40 percent of the 1.15 million foreign nationals caught last year by the U.S. Border Patrol trying to gain illegal entry to the United States were apprehended along a 260-mile stretch of the Arizona border here known as the Tucson sector.”

    In other words, that’s “ground Zero” in the Border battle.

    ***
    Yes, there’s even more wonderful news for you to tell your friends about, and it’s far outside of Arizona. Read on:

    MS-13 Gang controls Washington DC streets
    (Remove the space after the http)
    http ://gangs.umd.edu/wfrmGangsinmdDetail.aspx?id=Mara%20Salvatrucha,%20or%20MS-13

    Quoting the article:
    “MS-13 is involved in the trafficking of illegal drugs and gains illicit funds in that capacity. They are also involved in armed robberies, grand theft (including auto theft), and chop shops that break down stolen cars for the sale of parts.”

    ———–
    Barry, do you realize that the drug cartels and coyotes are currently using a terrorist tactic that was used against us in Iraq? Yes, coyotes and drug cartel runners are stringing piano wire across roads on OUR SIDE OF THE BORDER, and they are stringing it at the exact height of a Border Patrol agent’s neck while he is riding a 4-wheeler down OUR border roads. Decapitation is the expected outcome of their booby trap emplacement.

    In Iraq, we were able to counter this very same terrorist measure by simply placing a metal bar at an angle that extended above the machine gun turret (where the height of the piano wire was usually strung). MS-13 are sure a bunch of nice folks, huh?

    ———–
    “If you are sooooo-super smart— oooo…. MENSA”
    I can almost hear your voice sounding like a 6th-grade bully taunting a kid on a grade-school playground.

    Had you bothered to check our website, you would have discovered that MENSA does not get involved in political or social issues. Thus, I can’t “get my MENSA buddies together” to solve the inaction and complete failure of our Federal government to seal our borders and to protect our citizens from this invasion by armed gangsters and other victims of these human traffickers.

    ———–
    “maybe you can look at American history and come up with ttimes and places where people came to American, or became American citizens without the benefit of having come through Ellis Island, and with or without the sanction of any laws at the time”

    I am sure I could, but what is the point? We are not living in 1825 or 1905. The last time I checked, it is 2010. However, to satisfy yet another request from you…

    Between 1850-60, we gained 8 million people, or a 35% increase of the existing 31 million citizens compared to the previous decade. From 1870-80, another 12 million emigrated. During the “Ellis Island Period” in 1910, however, the numbers jumped to 16 million, and that was with the new immigration laws that were enforced at Ellis Island- laws that checked for criminal backgrounds, diseases, and so forth. As I recall, these LEGAL immigrants had a strong desire to become Americans by learning our language, English, and wanted to contribute to society. This is a stark contrast to the illegal immigrants of today. Illegal immigrants are the polar opposite of the LEGAL immigrants who come here today and want to also learn our culture and language.
    Numbers Source:
    http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf

    By contrast, the number of illegals we gain ANNUALLY is estimated to be 10.8 million. That is in one year, unlike the numbers I previously cited earlier which covered an entire decade.

    ———–
    “a person with a newfound appreciation of logic”
    Newfound? Sorry…. I’ve always been a logical thinker. It actually got stronger once I started writing computer code back in the mid 80’s. We musicians are also logical thinkers because we use the “lazy” side of our brains where logic and reasoning is thought to be located. You can take the test to see which side dominates your life:
    (Remove the space after the http)
    http://www.web-us.com/brain/LRBrain.html

    ———–
    “imagine what life is like when you don’t fear people”
    I don’t fear people. Barry. Rather, I do not want to put up with people, no matter who the hell they are or where the hell they are from, who show absolutely no respect for our laws. I like immigrants, as I said earlier. Immigrants are what made this country great. I do not like illegal immigrants, no matter where they are from or what darn color their skin is. That is irrelevant. You still cannot not make the distinction between the two, and I don’t think you ever will. I live in the most diverse city in the world, If I “feared” people as you keep alleging, I would not venture outside.

    Instead, I travel over the road 10 or 11 hours every single day, dodging an average of 10-12 drunk drivers in the process. I see hundreds of people who have emigrated legally everyday in the truckstops I frequent. I do not fear these people, Barry. Just the opposite- I admire and respect them for their courage to do it the right way. I’ve even bought dinner for some just to hear their stories while we ate our meal. It is fascinating and refreshing to hear their stories! These folks are glad to be here and they also speak English. In fact, if you want to drive a commercial vehicle across state lines, then Federal law says:

    “391.11(b)(2) “Can read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records;”
    Source:
    http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?chunkKey=09016334800238ab

    ———–
    “I note it says nothing about your interactions with other people, only bragging about yourself. Yet the topic here is how we as a society deal with each other. I don’t see anything in your qualifications that you chose to provide that says you have any experience or sensitivity in those matters at all.”

    OK, Barry, here goes…

    Barry, I am a person of humility, which, by my definition, means accomplishing great things without the expectation of recognition. Yes, the achievements and accomplishments that I previously mentioned were personal in nature. That is what you wanted to extract from me. I also do a great many things to benefit others, and not myself, to satisfy my humble roots. If, as you eloquently describe it, “the topic here is how we as a society deal with each other”, then read on:

    Yes, I perform cummunity service that benefits others, but I do not like to broadcast it or brag about it. I have no need to. I don’t have to justify my personal achievements or choices to anyone. However, in this forum, I am constantly finding myself defending my personal choices in life and giving you more and more of my personal information because you keep attempting to extract this information from me when you doubt my credentials or question my intelligence. I did not really want to volunteer this information. Rather, I presented to you it because you apparently think I am not “worthy” of something on your agenda, or I have not accomplished anything. Frankly, I don’t care what you think. I just showed up here to (first) read the text of the law so I could be informed in discussions with others, and (subsequently) to make a couple of comments and debate this law with others using this forum. That’s all…

    Since you seem to be obsessed with my “societal” achievements, here are a few that are “non-personal”. I hope you do not cite this as “bragging” as you lured me into doing the last time, and I also hope this finally appeases you:

    (1) After my 21 year-old daughter died and I had completed my book (6 months later) which is targeted towards parents who are dealing with a child’s death, my family and I took the donations we received at her memorial service, along with donations we raised throughout the rest of that year, and donated it all in her name to Children’s Hospital. The first year, we donated nearly $10,000. We continued to raise money every year through family donations, paycheck savings, and local fund-raising events that we plan and execute. Every year since then, we have raised between $6,000 and $10,000. During the last week in November or the 1st week in December, we drive up and donate what we have collected. If I ever get that particular book published, the proceeds will, obviously, go into that fund. I did not do this for me. I do it for somebody else: our society’s kids and teens at Children’s Hospital.

    (2) I tutor computer science students free of charge at our local technical college. I do not do this for me. I do it for others: our society’s Computer Science Students who need help from a Cisco and Microsoft-certified expert.

    (3) I give free piano and guitar lessons to some of the kids and teenagers in my neighborhood. Statically, students who are involved in fine arts do better in school than other students. Thus, I do not do this for me. I do it for others</strong: our society's kids who have talent or want to enjoy a hobby.

    (4) I am a member of AMVETS, Post 113 which not only helps other veterans in my community by acception property and/or monetary donations to sell at the AMVETS stores, but we also help out veteran's families and/or veteran's survivors. I do not do this for me. I do it for others: my fellow vets who have also served their country.

    (5) I am a member of VFW Post 2805 for the same reasons listed in (4)

    Since I do not really care to defend my personal choices to you, nor anyone else on this forum, I will not be making any more posts. I have spoken my peace, and, as of yesterday, the courts began hearing arguments in the Federal Government’s bogus case against Arizona. It is NOT about civil rights. The law specifically prohibits civil rights violations.

    If the cop decides (on his own accord) to violate the Arizona law, tell me, Barry, is that really Arizona’s fault or Arizona’s intent? Or, as I contend, is it the OFFICER’S personal bad ethical decision? Answer: It is the officer’s personal responsibility for his personal ethical actions. It is the officer’s ethics should be investigated, and he, personally, should be held accountable if he violated the state law, not the state. The state’s intent is very clear and written in black and white, and that intent is to not violate anyone’s civil rights. Rogue cops who violate the Arizona law will be dealt with via the courts and will probably exposed in YouTube videos hence. A rogue cop’s bad personal decision will end his career. His momma should be slapped for not teaching him proper morals and ethics, but that’s just my own personal opinion…

    I have read the Federal Government’s case, and, even though they complained on the news shows for weeks about how the AZ law would violate civil rights, they did not bother to put the civil rights issue into their complaint because they knew it would not stand up. Hypocrites… ( Yes… I have read Atty Gen’s Holder’s complaint, and I laughed aloud afterwards).

    Actually, don’t you find it ironic that the Feds do not want to pursue “sanctuary cities” for harboring fugitives and law-breakers, yet the want to sue a state for passing a law that would have been unnecessary had the Federal Government been doing their job in the first place? This administration has to go. Period.

    Good luck in your endeavours, Barry, and may you stay safe and be prosperous, despite the administration’s repeated attempts to take it all away from you and give it to some poor schlop who doesn’t want to earn it the old-fashioned way. Um, excuse me, I guess I should use the President’s own words. “We need to re-distribute some of the wealth around here”

    I am looking forward to meeting even more legal immigrants during the course of my remaining years, and I am sure that a few of them that I may meet will become life-long friends who are happy that they emmigrated to the US to live the American dream and make a great life for themselves and their descendants. I have enjoyed the debate, but I must continue to devote most of my time to my studies over the next couple of weeks and finish my Final Projects for my classes.

    Take care.
    Bob

  179. Barry July 20, 2010 at 9:19 am

    @Bob –

    > . Rather, I do not want to put up with people, no matter who the hell they are or where the hell they are from,

    This says all anyone needs to know about you.

    When you show evidence that you have mastered statistics and probability 101 instead of bragging about your so-called MENSA brain, I might recommend someone take any word you right with only a grain of salt.

    You claim to be a computer programmer and a MENSA member as though that proves anything. In fact, given your presentation here, all it proves is you are a crappy programmer indeed.

    “computer programming” is not rocket science. With a degree in Computer Science and Statistics, and having spent part of my career with actual rocket scientists, I am comfortable that is the truth.

    Among computer science professionals, it is well known the quality and skill of the gernal pool of candidates ranges over at least a factor of 10, and the distribution is Pareto-like. So you probably aint “all that” as a programmer, any more than you are as a compassionate human being, a rational explainer, or a philosophical man.

    Each time you try to explain yourself, you dig yourself in deeper.

    My advice to you?

    Stop digging.

    MS13 and all the rest has nothing to do with the issue. If the way you right computer code is anything like the scattershot way you get off topic in trying to make a point, well, let’s just say I hope none of my loved ones ever encounter any code you are
    responsible for.

    And if your code is really such high quality, which I am sure you will claim, then can you explain wht your written rhetoric, which *you* compared to your coding skills, is so poorly constructed? How about if you test your arguments for holes the same way you would test your code to make sure it is solid, and does the right thing?

    Or, you can just give it up and stop trying to impress us how smart you are, because you are doing the opposite to anyone wise enough to judge.

  180. […] read the executive order that implemented Arizona’s new anti-illegals law before. Now I’ve read the law itself. (Every law should be this short and easy to […]

  181. cricket23 July 25, 2010 at 3:47 am

    The Bail Reform Act of 1984 created a powerful detention provision that authorizes a state of local police officer to arrest any alien other than a legal permanent resident for a federal “offense,” and to request a local magistrate to temporarily detain the alien for up to ten days without bail while awaiting transfer into federal custody, so long as the alien is found to be a “flight risk” or danger to any other person or the community.”

    The authority to make arrest for federal offenses under 18 U.S.C. 3041 extends to state and local law enforcement officers. (U.S. v Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977) An illegal alien is an inherent flight risk.

    Supreme Court Ruling Razes Artificial Fire Wall Between Local Law Enforcement and Immigration Enforcement (Muehler v. Mena) 9-0 Landmark Decision (Washington D.C.—April 1, 2005) In its March 22 ruling in the case of Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court removed barriers that prevent local law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of individuals they suspect to be in the United States illegally. In this groundbreaking decision, the high Court rejected the claim of Ira Mena, a permanent resident of the U.S., that police had violated the Fourth Amendment while conducting a lawful search of her home.

    The Fourth Amendment provides protection by establishing that persons be shielded against unreasonable search and seizure. Mena argued that by questioning her, and the illegal alien detainees about their immigration status during a lawful search, officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Mena further claimed that questions asked about her citizenship required officers to have had independent reasonable suspicion regarding the unlawfulness of her immigration status.

    Calling a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “faulty,” the Supreme Court held that “mere police questioning [regarding one’s immigration status] does not constitute a seizure.” The Court continued its landmark ruling on this issue by stating that “the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date of birth, or immigration status.”

    “Whatever legal fig leaf many police departments have been using to justify policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration authorities, has been stripped away by this landmark Supreme Court decision,”

    “If local police are barred from cooperating with federal authorities in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws it is purely a political decision on the part of local politicians and police chiefs. There is no legal barrier to local police inquiring about a person’s immigration status and then acting upon the information they gather.”

    1918
    Arrest of Illegal Aliens by State and Local Officers

    http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01918.htm

  182. Lisanne September 8, 2010 at 9:14 am

    Hello everyone. I wonder if we all have heard the saying, “Don’t judge a man until you walk a mile in his shoes” (moccasins, loafers, whatever). I’m sure most of us have. This is very fitting in this case. While I agree that for some individuals an ID carried at all times could at one time or another be potentially problematic, it is highly unlikely that any law-abiding citizen would run into a problem. I think that people have this idea that the AZ cops are vigilantes on a mission. So untrue. My son is half Dominican. He could easily pass for someone of Mexican heritage. He also does not have a state ID, a state driver’s license. Only his school I.D. and pretty much walks wherever he wants to go, unless it is too hot. I asked him how he felt about this new law, since apparently the rest of the nation feels that someone that looks like my son would be a target for unnecessary harassment by law enforcement. He said he wasn’t worried about it in the least. I asked him his reasoning behind this and he said that if it were to ever happen, which was unlikely since he wasn’t planning on breaking the law, that it would be quite simple to prove his citizenship, even if it took a little while.

    Living in Arizona he and the rest of us understand the dangers of illegal immigration. And it’s not about jobs. So here is my suggestion via moccasin sharing. Come to AZ. Yep, come on down. Visit the homesteads,ranches, etc. of those living close to the border. See the shotguns they have to keep by the doors and weapons they keep on themselves just to ensure they stay alive. Yep, stay alive. Oh, and do spend the night. But don’t expect to stay asleep. Because drug runners will be knocking on the door. They are just friendly that way. Besides, they were helping to relocate some “friends” and picking up so extra money doesn’t hurt. Why they run off when you open the door with a loaded shotgun is beyond me. Wish they would have stayed for breakfast. At least they were able to get water from the faucet outside for them and the other people with them. You get mighty thirsty when you have to walk such long distances through other people’s property since you don’t want anyone to see what you are up to. Well, the sun’s up now. And since you were so nice to come out and visit, you can go out and help them work their farms. It’ll be fun! But if you happen to find drugs stashed on the property good holy heck… do not turn them in! It’s important to live in fear. This keeps you alive. Heck, just look at ol’ Henry across the way. He found drugs and turned them in. Was shot in cold blood right on his own property. Guess that showed him. And as far as the people who are just coming to AZ for a better way of life… good luck to you. The desert is not your friend. Between the heat and the drug cartel, well, you’ll be lucky if you get to keep your head intact. Come to think of it… why do I live here anyway????

  183. Lisanne September 8, 2010 at 9:32 am

    I want to protect the people that have built their lives near the border. Our society is unraveling. I wish for better times when we would not have to worry about all this crap. But it’s here. And we need action, not debate over why someone should or should not have to carry an ID. Really? This is about someone’s rights??? Someone’s right to not have to carry a laminated paper??? How about people’s rights to not be shot and killed on their own property. Life vs. laminated paper. Don’t tell me, I know this one. But do you??

  184. Barry September 8, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    Ha! They are baaaack!

    Echoing the lies the AZ Governor already was forced to admit to in her debate last week.

    How sad.

    You know it is all lies, right?

  185. victor September 8, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    AMERICA IS **NOT** ISLAMOPHOBIC! OR HISPANAPHOBIC! We are Tired of waiting YEARS for American Muslims AND American Hispanic’s to Publicly & Privately condemn and separate from Radical Islam or Illegal Immigrants. THAT’S ALL!! America will truly heal afterwards! Radical Islam is No Different Than The KKK. When “White America” ostracized the KKK, we ALL started to move forward in America.
    If there was a White, blue eyed male pedophile serial killer in my neighborhood, all white blue eyed guys would be investigated. American Muslim and Hispanic’s should be helping, by cooperating, and as long as the Officer is courteous, the Legal American should reciprocate. Whether it’s a Muslim at an airport or a Hispanic in AZ. Help solve the problem we’re ALL facing in America, as quickly as possible.

  186. Barry September 10, 2010 at 7:24 am

    Heh! Victor is back with his anti-American rants.

    Funny that he is not arguing the rightness of the law itself anymore, having lost that case in Court since the last time he posted here.

    Instead, he treats us to a rant demanding that people not exercise their 1st Amendment Right to not speak, demanding that they speak in support of tyranny of a mob, which, while he may feel comfortable being part of,good Americans know that tyranny of the mob is exactly what our radical American system of government was designed to prevent.

  187. victor September 10, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Lost the case?? Barry, I thought that argument was over. The Supreme court will 100%, rule in favor of the AZ. law. I stopped debating that with you, because you were to chicken Sh*t to put your money where your mouth was. I challenged you to a $1000 bet, that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the Law, and you declined. I’ll offer that wager again!

  188. Barry September 10, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    Heh. Now you are relying on the SCOTUS to save you? did you predict a loss a tthe first level?

    Your idea of justice for 400 million Americans is use obscenities regarding a bet with a random guy on the internet, and you want to be taken seriously?

    How about if you address the substance of my previous post, explaining how your post prior to that is in the spirit of what we all learned is good about America in grade school? Especially all of the parts of the First Amendment?

    You did know there was more than one part to the first amendment too?

    Anyway, you are exactly the person that the guy who wrote the “First they came for …” poem regarding the Holocaust was both writing about and warning the world about.

    So entertain us: How is your rant aligned with the principles of freedom of speech, of association, of religion, and so forth?

    Be as detailed as you possibly can, provide links or other references to your sources, do your best to be persuasive instead of a dick hiding behind a keyboard.

    Persuade me, an American, why it is the nature of our country that I should call the cops and tell them that there are 75 Muslims living in my neighborhood alone.

    Have fun!

  189. victor September 11, 2010 at 7:58 am

    PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS! Freedom of and, and backing up what you say, otherwise its just rhetoric, hyperbole, or verbal diarrhea. I said from the beginning that the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the law, because it mimics the Fed Law. The DOJ didn’t even challenge the law, just side stepped parts of it.

  190. victor September 11, 2010 at 8:07 am

    The previous post talks about being an American! In America, we were “taught” if we see someone breaking the law, or any type of injustice, you do something about it, or tell someone. Racism and the KKK were finally sent to the fringe of society when Evangelists condemned it in their sermons, when family members who were intertwined with kkk members or racists, stood up at the family gathering and told them, not use that language around them or their kids.

  191. victor September 11, 2010 at 8:13 am

    The same holds true with American Muslims, until they ostracize radical Muslims from their family gatherings and churches, until they publicly condemn and separate from Radical Islam extremists, many will be unfairly or fairly grouped in with the. Guilt by Association. Another lesson learned as a child in America Barry. “you are who your friends are” When one of your friends thinks it’s cool to light a dog on fire, and you don’t walk away and/or call the police, you’re just as guilty “consciously” and an some form of accessory “legally”

  192. victor September 11, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Illegal Immigrants are the same. Until legal immigrants who’s families are intertwined with illegal’s separate themselves from one another, until Legal Immigrants turn them in, or ostracize them from the community. Until businesses refuse to hire them, legal immigrants will be temporarily detained during everyday life. Until Legal immigrants come out and publicly condemned illegals, it will be guilt by association, and a type of aiding and abetting.

Leave A Comment