jump to last post 1-47 of 47 discussions (248 posts)

Arizona Immigration Law- What do you think?

  1. TheSituation profile image77
    TheSituationposted 7 years ago

    What do you all think about this one?  Seems like some good fodder for my fellow hubbers.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      To address this issue you have to get to the bottom of why someone would wish to leave their own country and take a treacherous journey plagued with danger and possible death to settle illegally in a foreign country.

      My guess is that it is the abundance of opportunity and wealth that lures them here.  The opportunity to get a job at far greater the wages you can there is one reason and little or no attention being paid to the enforcement of the laws that would send them back home.

      How many times have we heard of companies that throw out their workforce of American labor and replace it with illegal immigrant labor at less than a third of the cost?  If the government would impose hefty fines of $30,000 or more for each infraction of hiring illegals, you would stop the usurping of the law to satisfy business profits.

      Locking up anybody that looks illegal is an afront to our freedom.  Just wait till the lawsuits begin for false imprisonment and even worse charges when somebody gets hurt from this stupid racist law.

      1. TheSituation profile image77
        TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with this 100%.  Enforcement of the law, making sure that if you are coming to our country, which is a privilege, that you follow the rules and the laws, just like our forefathers did.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Our forefathers who obtained this land by slaughtering natives and Mexicans?  Hmmmmmmmm

          1. rebekahELLE profile image90
            rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            he better watch america, the history of us... wink

      2. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "Locking up anybody that looks illegal is an afront to our freedom. "


        Fortunately we have no law that permits such a thing.

  2. TheSituation profile image77
    TheSituationposted 7 years ago

    Wow...nothing?  Really?

  3. MikeNV profile image72
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    I think it will finally FORCE the Federal Government to get off their butts and address the problem.

    1. profile image0
      Will Bensonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed. If AZ hadn't passed the law, the Feds would still be sitting on their hands.

  4. MikeNV profile image72
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    I also like the idea that States are going to push to protect the views and rights of the citizens to Govern themselves locally.  There is a movement for States challenging the Federal Government for local governance in a lot of areas - guns, medical marijuana, immigration, land and water rights, etc.

    I'm for the citizens of each State deciding what is or is not good for them instead of having the Federal Government cram it down their throats.

    1. TheSituation profile image77
      TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree 100%.  The talk of  how difficult it would be to deal with a "patchwork" of rules etc. is just pure red-herring.  We have patchworks of state laws in everything from insurance to weapons laws to investments. 

      Local issues that are of HUGE concern can get overlooked by a centalized federal govenement.  Arizona has a all out war on their souther border and the Feds are doing almost nothing to protect the life and property of those along the border because of political concerns.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You guys in favor of States making up thier own ruled..

        Suppose California decided that they can impose an import duty on everything that hits the docks from China.. Sounds like the way for them to balance the budget...

        Oh no - oh no - They can't do that.. It's in the pervue of the Federal government.. And Immigation is not???

        1. JWestCattle profile image59
          JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That is not even coherent to the discussion topic.  Apples and Oranges, or maybe you think they are the same fruit.

        2. TheSituation profile image77
          TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You are 100% correct, states do not have that ability to impose tariffs since it deals with international relations which is the Feds. area, however, passing a law that simply duplicates a EXISTING federal law and requires that state and local law enforcement assist in its enforcement is drastically different.  This is already done with pretty much every federal crime you can think of, kidnapping, murder, extortion etc.

          Why do people have a problem with the enforcement of an existing law?   There is no debate that people who enter our country without authorization are breaking the law but for some reason, because they are from a particular country, a particular color or a particular ethic group they should not be held to the same rule of law as the rest of us?  How is that even remotely logical and who are really the racists?

      2. Friendlyword profile image60
        Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Arizona is in a desperate situation and is taking desperate measures.  That's why we have Federal Laws.  To keep States from making terrible laws like this one.

        Of course it's Unconstitutional and will not stand.

        1. TheSituation profile image77
          TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          People keep saying that.  It is almost exactly what the current Federal laws are. 

          Can someone please explain how you justify not enforcing our immigration laws?

  5. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    I think it's unfair to Mexican-Americans, legal and undocumented, and that it may well be un-constitutional.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      To prevent the same legal hispanic-Americanfrom being repeatedly stopped for papers, the first cop to hassle them each day could give them a big star to wear for the rest of the day...

      (You have to know a little history to get it..)

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yup, sounds about right.

        It'll be a field day for non-hispanic illegals from Canada and the UK Russia, China and most of Europe.

        To me the only fair way would be for every single person to carry papers with them all the time and be forced to show that at any time. That belongs with the stars too..

        1. profile image0
          Ghost32posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Well,so far I haven't been caught by a cop without my driver's license....

      2. TheSituation profile image77
        TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Wait, so enforcing the laws (Federal) that are on the books  and have been for decades is not constitutional?  Running to the "unconstitutional" cry every time someone is asked for a reason why they disagree with this law in disingenuous at best and a flat lie at worst. 

        If it is unconstitutional to ask for ID, then tell the officer that next time you are pulled over.

        Here is my answer.  National ID requirement (issued by the states but meeting a federal standard.  When law enforcement asks for ID, which they do to EVERYONE they stop, then you know if they are legal or not, criminal or not.

        Saying this is racist is a joke, that is just a way of not discussing the real issue which is that you simply do not think we need to enforce our immigration laws for those coming across the southern border and all the people hurt by the smuggling, property damage and murder be damned.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The difference is, right now the cops don't pull you over just because (unless you're Driving While Black which is a different matter. 

          They pull you over for committing an offense, and only then do they ask you for your ID.  This law requires the police to act on simple suspicion that someone might be in the country illegally.

          1. TheSituation profile image77
            TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Really?  I must of skipped over the part in the law that requires law enforcement to only ask hispanics for their ID.  Law enforcement knows that they can not profile and if anything much of our law enforcement goes too far in being politically correct.

        2. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You pointed out that the enforcement of the law is intended "to enforce our immigration laws for those coming acorss the southern border". This is the problem - Profiling. Anybody who looks 'South of the Border' is a target.  A blue-eyed blonde is not.

          My opinion is that anyone who is arrested should provide proof of thier identity and  status before release. But to reqire police to do ID checks 'on suspicion' stinks. Cops can be sued if they are not aggresive enough - and they will be sued if they are too aggressive. Sucks for any honest cop to be between that rock and a hard place. The check extends not only to the driver but to anyone in the vehicle.  So a hispanic family not only needs to buckle up - they have to verify ID for everyone to avoid the vehicle being impounded by a zealous cop.

          And this mess was introduced by the crowd that rails against 'tyrany' from Washington... My irony meter pegged out.

          If Arizona wanted to address the problem, they would have gone after employers of illegal aliens with monumental fines and jail time for owners of those companies. No telling who might get swept up in that, though. Safer to hassle the Mex on the street.

          1. JWestCattle profile image59
            JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Police require any American to provide ID when they stop them and question them, at least they do me.  Why is that a problem?  It is ridiculous to scream racial-profiling and civil rights violation over a critical State issue that has resulted in a bold passage of law in the State of Arizona to protect the civil liberties of the legit residents and visitors to that State -- because our US government chose to ignore the critical problem in the interests of votes, as well supported by Obama's Youtube broadcast that came out today, that is in reality blatantly racist pandering, and shocking to hear -- the ultimate racist pandering, and disappointing, even to me.

            The victims in Arizona are the targets of racial profiling by illegals, as well as no doubt social profiling, as they choose their target. Whose rights are more important?  Get real.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              My understanding is that the police have to have a reason for stopping someone and asking for I.D., not just he or she looks vaguely suspicious.

              1. JWestCattle profile image59
                JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, that is correct. And so far as I know I don't have the right to sue or shout civil rights violations or racial profiling if a group of persons like me commit horrendous crimes and I look generally like them, and I'm in the vicinity, and a cop thinks I'm acting suspicious and stops me -- but then I'm not focused on being on the lookout for the basis for a law suit.

                  And if in fact I do have the right to bring a frivolous charge against the questioning officer, I would not, as clearly it was in the interests of the greater good of my community.

                The notion that this law will lead to someone's Grandma being deported is ludicrous. We don't have the manpower at a State or Federal level to deal with all illegal immigrants, and this law is in the interests of controlling violent illegal immigrants -- it is doubtful that they have the money or manpower to do anything more than that.

                I've lived directly on the border of Texas and Mexico, and I've seen illegals huddled in the ditches along dark and remote farm roads, running across open ranch land and you catch a glimpse as your headlights cut across the land.  As well, in Mexico, be assured I have been, and many others, stopped for no reason, and every single thing on your person or vehicle inspected and every paper checked, for no reason other than our clear nationality. 

                America has to have some limits on setting the example for the world, or one day we will just be the butt of the joke of the world.

                It needs to stop on both sides, for their benefit and our own.  We are neighbors, and it is time Mexico received more aid from the US over and well above many other countries that receive our tax dollars, that would go along way toward resolving the critical issue of illegal immigration, and perhaps Mexico would even be on board for this so-called 'racial profiling'.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                  Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  i think the best thing that the US can do for Mexicans and Mexico, is to stop all aide to the country, but just make becoming a US citizen less of a headache.

                  It should just be like this:

                  Cop: "Hello, sir, what brings you to the US"
                  Guy: "i wanna become a citizen"
                  Cop: "name?"
                  Guy: "guy"
                  Cop: "have a good life! work hard and have fun!"

                  ... that would make the most sense. The sheer fact that immigrating to the US is illegal is breathtakingly disgusting.

                  1. profile image0
                    Ghost32posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Immigrating to the U.S. is not illegal.  Slipping over the border in the dead of night without letting anyone on this side know who you are or what your background might be is what's illegal.

                  2. TheSituation profile image77
                    TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Really?  That is your answer?  Should we invite all the 2 billion Chinese who want to be citizens along as well?  Reality sir.

                  3. kerryg profile image87
                    kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    It's not illegal, but it should definitely be easier. It's not that people want to be illegal, it's that they can't afford to come here legally, and when you're that desperate....

                    1. TheSituation profile image77
                      TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      I agree that their are some changes that could be made, but I am sorry, coming to this country should be hard and should be a privilege.  Those who do it need to value what they are getting.  Most of us know someone who has come here legally, who has had to learn about our country, our laws, our language, my grandfather did it and so did my wife.

                      The United States is not a convenience store that people can drop by when they want a quick buck.  I agree that these people are looking for a better life and do not fault them for trying to improve their lot, but that does not change the fact that we have a  responsibility to protect our own country and not let it be exploited, regardless of the motives of those doing so.

              2. Daniel Carter profile image90
                Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Although I agree, I've been stopped by some real a**hole cops on a power trip who did nothing but harrass me. I don't think just because there must be "just cause" that it's necessarily going to actually happen that way.

                1. lightning john profile image61
                  lightning johnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  All a police officer has to do is say, "I seen you swerving your vehicle there fella!"  That has happened to me before, and I wasn't swerving at all, and surely had not been drinking!

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I've had similar experiences, and I agree with your conclusion. I don't have a lot of trust for the "men in blue."

                  1. JWestCattle profile image59
                    JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    If you took a poll you'd find people of every color, religion, ethnicity, etc.....who have had a bad experience with the men in blue who were themselves of a variety of color, race, and religion.  Such generalities should not be used to justify turning a blind eye to the law, and turning one's back on American citizens who have the right to live in a reasonably safe environment.

                    1. TheSituation profile image77
                      TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      And I am sure that everyone has had a good experience with Police as well.  The dis-respect people sometimes show can aggravate the situation.    There are jerks in every profession.

      3. Rafini profile image87
        Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What should be considered unconstitutional is Unequal Protection Under the Law.

        Do you have any idea how many Legal Immigrants this country accepts every year?  Why should they have to PAY for the RIGHT to Enter this country when OVER 12,000,000 Illegal Immigrants Paid NOTHING yet have MORE RIGHTS than even Natural Born Citizens??

        just my 2 cents

    2. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago

      Ihre Papiere bitte, Herr Mexican dude...

    3. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago

      Is the new law an attempt to disenfranchise Latino voters?

      http://www.truthout.org/behind-the-ariz … ction58877

      1. JWestCattle profile image59
        JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No, it is an attempt to provide protection to law-abiding citizens of the State of Arizona, and the country of the United States of America.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The police have always had the power to arrest criminals or to question individuals engaged in suspicious or illegal activity. The Arizona law will result in harassment of Hispanics in Arizona.

          1. TheSituation profile image77
            TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, it will result in people who are BREAKING THE LAW being arrested and deported whether they are white, brown yellow, speaking Spanish, Russian or Chinese.

            And please lets take to heart the cries from Mexico, which has some of the strictest immigration laws on earth.  The hypocrisy is breathtaking!

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              the law is stupid.

              Being arrested (even if innocent) can ruin your life.

              You are thus refuted.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          protection? protection from what? some mexican dude who wants work hard? ...

          Those dudes at Chipotle kick ass! I love em. I don't know if they're legal or not, but who cares? they never forced me to buy a burrito!

          1. Rafini profile image87
            Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            gee, I wonder if they'd hire me?  I need a job....but then again, I'd expect my full benefits provided by Law, such as a real Lunch Break.

    4. profile image69
      logic,commonsenseposted 7 years ago

      If a person is not here illegally, what do they have to fear?
      We have many laws, only certain ones are enforced every time.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        if you don't have a yellow star on your shirt, and you're not a Jew, then what do you have to fear?

        ...

        Oh, and to add to this argument - simply being thrown in a police cab, whether innocent or guilty, can ruin your life. If you get arrested and thrown in jail (before you can get a trial), then your life is ruined - every employer in the country has access to your arrest file. The immigrants who just happened to forget where they put their "i'm actually a citizen" card will have their lives ruined because they can't get good jobs.

        1. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sick of hearing this argument.  Why should illegal immigrants have the right to destroy MY life (and any other LEGAL American who can't find a job) by keeping wages too low for me to support myself without 6 years of college that I can't afford??  OR, I could simply receive food stamps for the rest of my life through a one-time purchase of a Fake ID for only $1,000.

          I haven't been arrested, but my life is still ruined because I choose to live within the laws of my country.

    5. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

      The law has zero chance of passing a court challenge - the first suit will be filed by the Mayor of Phoenix this week.  The bill is simply an attempt by a band of wingnut lawmakers to pander to a fearful population.

      1. TheSituation profile image77
        TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Once again I would like to ask for someone to please tell me how you can justify NOT enforcing the law? 

        People are breaking the law.  Why should we not enforce that law?  I am looking for a real answer, not something about how they "are trying to make a better life."  Your local crack dealer is trying to make a better life too!

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          if a law is retarded, it's our duty as citizens to defy it.

          1. TheSituation profile image77
            TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Is that a legal definition?  "Retarded."  And you are the one who gets to decide that?  Buy a  ticket back to reality

    6. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago

      The state is allowed to pass such a law.

      It is an idiotic law, and it will lead to a mass exodus of minorities out of Arizona and will lead to economic chaos.

      The state is allowed to pass the evil, horrible, and stupid law, but it is a very stupid thing to do.

      The cops are allowed to stop the citizenry if they have probable cause.... I just fail to see how "being a minority" is in any way probable cause.

      The law can be passed, but I don't think it will be easy to enforce.

    7. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

      Police groups are lining up against it

      Maybe Palin's Alaska State troopers will enforce it for us?

    8. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago

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

      That's how illegal immigration was handled in the 50s. At least the federal government acted in accordance with the responsibilities assigned to them by the constitution. Now what has our government done? Nothing! Arizona had no choice but to take action. Crime is out of control. It's the kidnapping capital of the USA. If nothing else maybe the action by AZ will prompt Obama to actually do something to secure our borders and address the problem of illegals entering the country.

      1. Padrino profile image62
        Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh he'll do something, he will call the citizens of Arizona racists and compare them to Hitler. That's what race baiters do.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Gibberish

          1. Padrino profile image62
            Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Is that what Obama's press secretary speaks?

            "Gibberish"

      2. TheSituation profile image77
        TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        But they are looking for a better life so all the drug smuggling, rape, murder, theft and kidnapping is ok.

    9. Padrino profile image62
      Padrinoposted 7 years ago

      The Police are charged with enforcing the laws, they will enforce this one.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        They'll never get the chance.  This law is DOA later this week when it hits the court.

        1. Padrino profile image62
          Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Whatever! If its struck down then so be it, but if it isn't they better enforce it.

          1. TheSituation profile image77
            TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            So what does everyone think of the law now that it has been amended to ensure that how someone looks is not used as grounds to checking immigration status?

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It's a definite improvement.  makes you wonder why it wasn't written this way in the first place.

    10. Sab Oh profile image60
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago

      -There are blond-haired, blue-eyed people south of the border

      -Being stopped, and even detained but not ultimately charged does not "ruin your life"

      -Protecting the sovereignty of our nation is not a trivial matter

      -Crying "racism" over the enforcement of laws that apply equally to all is childish, facile, and transparent

      -If there is a "mass exodus" of illegals out of Arizona, I wager that their neighboring states will suffer the effects and Arizona will reap benefits.

    11. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 7 years ago

      I say, Good for Arizona!!  It's about time somebody did something.

    12. livelonger profile image90
      livelongerposted 7 years ago

      I think it's telling that the people who support this law will probably move next to force every citizen to carry a government-issued identity card.

      1. Padrino profile image62
        Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Do you have proof of your statement or do you just want to muddy the waters with drivel?

        1. livelonger profile image90
          livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Do I have proof of the future activity of another group of people?

          No, I don't.

          1. Padrino profile image62
            Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That's what I thought!

            Not tex,saboh,tk!

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this



              Then why do you try so hard to sound like them ?  Are you a disciple?

              1. Padrino profile image62
                Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't know I sounded like them, how so?

                As for the disciple part, I only know of one of these people and I am not a disciple of saboh.

          2. Padrino profile image62
            Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Why did you edit?

            1. livelonger profile image90
              livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I was being kind. I didn't say you were Sab Oh or TK, right?

              1. Padrino profile image62
                Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I guess not.

                Thanks, I guess.

      2. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No. That's the federal government's plan.

      3. TheSituation profile image77
        TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Wow, what a crazy idea!!  Why would we as a law abiding country require someone to carry ID?  That is flat crazy talk, next thing you are gonna tell me we need ID to board a plane, cash a check, use a credit card, drive a car, buy alcohol,  enroll in school, get benefits, buy tobacco and prescription drugs. 

        How can they demand that we prove we are who we say we are.  '

        1. livelonger profile image90
          livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, what's one more thing to carry around anyway, and if you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to fear, right?

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

          1. kerryg profile image87
            kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            My alcoholic Russian host father climbed on the wagon the night he lost his ID while drunk. He was a blubbering mess for days. Of course, Russian cops are complete motherf***ers who think nothing of beating you up even if you do have your papers, so I couldn't really blame him, but I am not pleased to see America taking one step closer to that state of affairs.

    13. rebekahELLE profile image90
      rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago

      so you don't see anything wrong with an officer walking up to a Hispanic person and asking them to show their immigration papers?
      What if he walks up to you in order not to show discrimination?

      1. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I have a funny feeling the people in Arizona wouldn't mind showing their ID. What is happening there is beyond belief.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Funny ? No

          Wrong?  Yes.  There is already a petition being circulated to stop this nonsense.  The people of Arizona all agree that the murders, kidnappings and other violence need to be stopped.  detaining people for looking "illegal" won't accomplish that.

          1. profile image0
            Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Well 70% of the people in AZ disagree with you. Now how's that democracy working for ya?

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              90% of Arizonans didn't want an official MLK day.  Opinions change under the harsh light of reality.

              1. profile image0
                Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Really? Did they ever pass that?

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes.  Even Arizona can't stand up to the NFL.

                  1. DevLin profile image60
                    DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, we did. We just didn't want a PAID day off for the state workers. That's what we objected to. We don't get it, why should they?

                    1. TheSituation profile image77
                      TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      What a crazy idea to have cops asking for ID?  What is this, Mexico (those of you have been there know what I am talking about.)

                2. AEvans profile image71
                  AEvansposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes they passed it but John McCain was against it , in 1987 he agreed with Ev Mecham and rescinded it, but later on apologized for it. In 1996 Arizona finally voted that we have a MLK holiday I do not know what percent were for it or againstthat is irrelevant considering that many people were happy Black, White, Hispanic etc. that we finally observed the holiday. I would not say 90% of Arizona is racist, from what I have dealt with it is only a small percentage. But then again I turn my head to ignorance and truly do not have anytime for stupidity. smile

                  1. DevLin profile image60
                    DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Please. Never mention McCain to me. I have no idea how such a crook stays in office. The Keating 5, the million for cars for welfare from Toyota America he "lost" somewhere? I live in a Mexican neighborhood like most everyone else. You're a racist, you're going down,

                    1. AEvans profile image71
                      AEvansposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      I can't stand McCain either my husabnd remembers what he did and many of us agreed that Ev Mecham was prejudice. I love living in Arizona but many of the things they do can be quite embarassing for us as people of this state. Are you saying I am racist? Last time I checked my Aunt was from Mexico and my husband is Black, my sister's wife is Navajo so we have a melting pot of people in our family what is hard for me is that I see good in everyone and lately that has gotten me into a World of trouble. Unfortunately you are calling the wrong persn racist I just did not wish to offend those who also respected McCain, I am a lover not a person who argues, but hey my boxing gloves are ready, lolololo (((Big Hugs)) smile

          2. Padrino profile image62
            Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Detaining? How long do you suppose it takes for a citizen to prove he is a citizen? An ID/drivers license should do the trick, every time a car is stopped for a traffic violation the driver is technically under arrest, should they do away with the traffic laws too?

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              OK then.  Please scan and post a copy of your driver's license.  You have nothing to fear right?

              1. Padrino profile image62
                Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                If I am ordered to (legally) scan and post my Drivers license I will!

                Hasn't happened yet.

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You follow orders well young lemming.

                  1. Padrino profile image62
                    Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I do most things well, Thanks for noticing. I guess you resist the Police when they want your ID?

                    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      Yes, as is my constitutional right.  If I am suspected of an offense, such as a traffic violation, I am required to show and I do.  If an officer is "just curious" and wants to see ID (it's happened twice) I don't show him.  I was not detained in either instance.

        2. rebekahELLE profile image90
          rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I think for those who understand the implications of the law, they very much would.

          trying to impose selective enforcement sounds like extremism to me. 

          I agree laws much be enforced, but there has to be a better solution. living in florida, I'm not unfamiliar with illegal immigrants and the pitfalls. I've heard both sides of the arguments. the problem is bigger than the proposed solution at this point.
          how is it going to be enforced lawfully?

          1. profile image0
            Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Well just like health care, we'll have to pass it to see what's in it and how it works.

          2. TheSituation profile image77
            TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Who said anything about selective enforcement?  Here is the solution, ask EVERYONE for their ID.  Anyone really have a  problem with that?

      2. Padrino profile image62
        Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Officers ask to see ID's all the time, whats new about that?

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Ever have them demand ID for passengers? children inthe car?

          Do you realize that they can impound your car for an infracion?

          1. Padrino profile image62
            Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I never had an Officer ask for the identification of a passenger or child in my car when I was stopped. They can impound for certain infractions but not for just any infraction! In my State you can be arrested for any traffic offense its called instandering, its used for those who refuse to sign the citation or admit they have no intention of paying the ticket.

    14. DevLin profile image60
      DevLinposted 7 years ago

      My best freind came to America at one, legally. He has three daughters that call me uncle, and all of them are tired of the illegals here. Phoenix, Arizona. They'll gladly show ID. I can't print the words they use for them.

      1. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly. Legal immigrants have to go through great time, effort, and expense to do things the right way and someone else just ducks under a fence? Outrageous.

    15. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

      lol

      1. Padrino profile image62
        Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What? You don't trust government agents?

        Must be a closet conservative.

        Actually you trust government when it works in your favor but not when it goes against what you believe. We may all be the same, this law just shows how limited a scope government should have.

        1. livelonger profile image90
          livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, it's funny that today's liberals tend to care more about personal freedom than most self-professed conservatives. When comparing Clinton to Bush Jr (fair, since both presided over economic expansions), the liberal was also much more fiscally responsible than the self-identified conservative, too.

          Shows you how meaningless some labels have become.

          1. Padrino profile image62
            Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            What personal freedoms do the liberals champion?

            Do they support a persons right to not buy Health care insurance if they don't want it? Obviously not if you support Obama's health care bill!

            Clinton couldn't spend, the Republicans controlled both house and senate, they were the fiscally conservative ones, Clinton was kept in check! Problem was they didn't keep Bush in check.

    16. rebekahELLE profile image90
      rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago

      it will be interesting to see what happens with this.

      it's even more interesting to see that Monsanto, the huge multinational agribusiness has two AZ locations, one in Yuma, the other in Mariposa. Seminis, Inc and Emergent Genetics.  they advertise in Mexico and hire illegal immigrants along with other food giants.

      they've had powerful ties to the federal government for a very long time, decades. they, along with a handful of other powerful multinational food giants pretty much run the world ... and control the food we eat.

      drugs? a lot could be said about why nothing has been done to enforce illegal immigration.

      1. livelonger profile image90
        livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Very, very good point. It goes a long way to explain why the easiest enforcement solution - preventing employers from hiring illegals - has not gotten the attention it probably deserves.

        1. rebekahELLE profile image90
          rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          it shows up at times in the news but is not exposed enough to the public for obvious reason. they have powerful lobbyists and control. if you google monsanto, it's interesting. I've learned more about them recently while researching the food we eat and where it comes from, etc. a lot of abuse and political influence with these powerful food giants.

          if you haven't seen Food, Inc, I highly recommend watching it.
          some of it comes up in this documentary.

    17. Play Free Games profile image60
      Play Free Gamesposted 7 years ago

      I'm not from the States and it may not be fair for me to comment. It must be difficult for those who live near the border. I can understand why they what their State government to have more power to protect them.

    18. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

      "The state resisted adopting Martin Luther King’s birthday as a holiday years after most other states embraced it. The sheriff in its largest county forces inmates to wear pink underwear, apparently to assault their masculinity. Residents may take guns almost anywhere, but they may not cut down a cactus. The rest of the nation may scoff or grumble, but Arizona, one of the last truly independent Western outposts, carries on."

      http://www.clubhousewreckards.com/images/sheriff_joe05.jpg

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/us/29arizona.html?hp

    19. Padrino profile image62
      Padrinoposted 7 years ago

      If the New York Times is against it, I'm all for it!

      Arizona, resist becoming a third world country!

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It's already a third world state, right down there with Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma and a few others.

        1. Padrino profile image62
          Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That's a pretty racist comment considering the racial makeup of a couple of those States!  Shame on you!

          1. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Have you forgotten? Liberal's can't be racist, so racist comments by them are really not racist and you must be racist for pointing out the racist implications of a liberal's statement. It's kind of like how they can't be violent even when they are being violent or misogynistic when they are being misogynistic. This is basic stuff.

          2. lightning john profile image61
            lightning johnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Of those states combined, who really knows what the racial population percentages are?

            1. Padrino profile image62
              Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              The census takers?

            2. Sab Oh profile image60
              Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It's not a secret

        2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Well, it may not be the paradise that Detroit is.......

          1. Padrino profile image62
            Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That's actually funny!

    20. Daniel Carter profile image90
      Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago

      In regard to putting a star on the foreheads if they've been stopped already: Here's a star, but it's not the forehead. Very effective as history recalls.


      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso … woman.html

      (crap, I can never get images to load in forum posts. This is the best I can do for now...)

      I'm absolutely against it. There are better ways of handling this without making it a passive form of terrorism.

    21. BDazzler profile image83
      BDazzlerposted 7 years ago

      Bottom line is illegal is illegal ... obviously the problem is systemic, coming from unenforceable laws which are often passed for the purpose of gaining votes and/or money from lobbyists.  Democrats and Republicans are both corrupted by this.

      Passing unenforceable laws is worse than useless because it leads to contempt for law by encouraging those who are wont to break the law to do so without consequence.

      The fact is that Arizona is taking action to enforce existing laws.  It is and should be embarrassing to all who should have been enforcing the law the entire time. (Democracies can be so pesky to the political elite, who seem to think that 70% support for the law is somehow irrelevant because it fails to live up to their self-proclaimed ideals.)

      If existing laws had been enforced perhaps the legal citizens of Arizona (you know those terrible "Racists" who work hard, pay taxes, live peacefully with their neighbors, you know pesky things like that) would not be forced to foot the annual $1.3 billion bill imposed upon them by these criminals (by criminal I mean someone who knowingly and deliberately breaks an existing law.)

      Source:
      http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?p … enters5e3f

      That's only the dollar cost ... According to the FBI, 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

    22. JWestCattle profile image59
      JWestCattleposted 7 years ago

      Well, it really is interesting that no liberals have jumped in to defend my 'lazy white Americans' -- I must say I am astounded, such a good word 'astounded', it seems to have sarcasm built right in.  Surely by now I should have been called out for racism and racial profiling by someone. 

      There are lots of hard working Americans, and probably even more so now many are willing to do work that on another day, or in another year, or another decade, they would have felt was not good enough and required too much sweat. Times change, and maybe a good thing to come out of this recessionary period will prove to be that many more Americans find their work ethic roots again rather than look to the fed for entitlements.

      1. Friendlyword profile image60
        Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Nooooooooooooo! People that had their retirement stolen and are to old to get back into their profession have to work at minimum wage jobs now. They had a great work ethic. They were robbed by Wall Street Crooks with no ethics at all!

        1. Sab Oh profile image60
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Let me reiterate that the American worker is the most productive in the world.

        2. JWestCattle profile image59
          JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, they did, many of us have had our lives forever changed, and yes the generations of Americans that lost the most have a great work ethic, and Americans historically have a great work ethic, look at the awesome country envisioned and built by many generations of our forefathers.  However, it was not just the Wall Street crooks with no ethics that are to blame for the massive loss of wealth and massive loss of jobs, although they are without a doubt the ones who profited most from our pain.

          But, the regulatory bodies of our government are charged with the duty to uphold our laws, and they should have foreseen the calamitous situation forming in the financial and housing markets and warned US, warned Congress - they had a fiduciary duty to you, to me.  They didn't uphold that moral duty.

          The issue of immigration is undoubtedly being brought to the forefront for many political reasons.  For the American people who are unemployed and need work, their reasons for wanting to see our immigration laws enforced beyond the criminal element, would be so they could work, so the American citizen could fill that job.  Someone here posted a link to an article about the numbers of people applying for jobs vacated by illegals, that is a very good, very heartening example of Americans who don't wish to be displaced by an illegal worker.  Why would you argue against them?

    23. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

      The real victims here are the good folks who produce Arizona Iced Tea.

      1. profile image0
        LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yuck. Good riddance.

    24. livelonger profile image90
      livelongerposted 7 years ago

      Then I really don't know where you're coming from. You're expecting, then, that our police will round up and deport 20 million people (twenty million people), because, paradoxically, they can't go after a few dozen major employers and make some very expensive examples of those that hire illegal workers.

      On the other hand, in the Arizona scenario, you'll be chasing millions of illegal workers. Those that are deported could come back. And with the same financial incentive still there as there is today, people will continue to come and come back. Why wouldn't they?

      There is absolutely no solution that will completely and utterly get rid of all illegal immigrants. There is a solution that is much easier on innocent legal immigrants and citizens who have done nothing wrong, and far easier to enforce.

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        This is the real crux of the matter.  The US government won't go after the first lawbreakers who are the employers who use the system to line their pockets.  The larger employers buy favor with the lawmakers to cover their back and the people left in between are the illegal immigrant worker and farther down the line the US worker who can't make a decent wage due to the lower value of labor supported by the employers hiring the illegals.

        Going after the illegal immigrants is a band aid on the problem and further violation of our rights.  Instead of going after these employers who break the law we are asked to give up our freedoms instead of enforcing the laws already in place.

        It wreaks of the same horribly enforced gun laws the government currently employ.  Instead of enforcing the law to the maximum when criminals commit crimes with guns the government would rather take the easy route of going after the legal citizenry as they are easier to round up annoy.

      2. profile image0
        LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry for taking so long to reply. Here's a link to the bill: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

        Page 7 and down there is a section on dealing with employers who hire illegals.

    25. JON EWALL profile image45
      JON EWALLposted 7 years ago

      HUBBERS

      FEW YEARS AGO IMMIGRATION REFORM WAS PUT IN NEUTRAL.
      CONGRESS AGREED THAT THE BORDER MUST BE CLOSED BEFORE TALKING ABOUT A NEW LAW
      Today, the fences have been built and they still are coming across the border.
      Why are they coming, apparently they do not fear the penalties of breaking our laws.
      It's all about money, power and future votes. Arizona's new immigration law which is similar to the 1986 federal law has brought to the surface that our government isn't doing the job.

      1986 Federal Law section

      SEC. 115. ENFORCEMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.
      It is the sense of the Congress that --
      (1) the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly, and
      (2) in the enforcement of such laws, the Attorney General shall take due and deliberate actions necessary to safeguard the constitutional rights, personal safety, and human dignity of United States citizens and aliens.
      "(1)(A) The State shall require, as a condition of an individuals eligibility for benefits under any program listed in subsection (b), a declaration in writing by the individual (or, in the case of an individual who is a child, by another on the individuals behalf), under penalty of perjury, stating whether or not the individual is a citizen or national of the United States, and, if that individual is not a citizen or national of the United States, that the individual is in a satisfactory immigration status.
      NOTE (1) (A )
      eligibility for benefits under any program
      if that individual is not a citizen or national of the United States, that the individual is in a satisfactory immigration status.
      TAXPAYER COST PROVIDING GOVERNMENT BENEFITS $ 30 BILLION PER YEAR

      Denying them government entitlements will stop the illegals entering the country and those who are here will leave.

      A simple solution if the government was serious to protect the people of the US.  We need to wake our elected officials up in Washington, they love hearing from their constituents.

    26. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

      Well, where I live, I can tell you the problem is with the employers!
      It may not have been their fault, but the reality now is that they contract for workers from over-seas, bring them over for a time, provide them housing (in some cases), and then send them home until next year, when they bring them back again!
      They always say they need to do it because they can't find Americans to work....
      Who will tell them to hire Americans?
      Even with these high-tech or high education jobs, a man who works for Jobs Corps told us that they will put an add in the America news-papers for a job opening, because they have to, but all along they had planned on hiring someone from overseas anyway....and all these Americans go in there with high hopes, when in reality, they are not even in contention!

      You know, when people talk about all this "real" Americans crap...seems to me they miss the ones who have been selling out Americans the most....business.
      They always blame high taxes and high standards of work conditions and pay that makes them leave....but really isn't it just they want more profit for themselves?
      Same ones who bring the illegals here because they will work dirt cheap, and take the horrible working conditions.
      Will we ever hold them to account?
      LOT of things need to change around this issue.

    27. Aya Katz profile image89
      Aya Katzposted 7 years ago

      "Hispanic" doesn't have any implications for what someone looks like. All it means is that their native language is Spanish. Monolingual Americans can't tell whether someone is hispanic even when they talk to them.

      1. livelonger profile image90
        livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, that's why non-Hispanics who "look Hispanic" (Indians, Arabs, Persians, etc.) will also be forced to show papers at a policeman's whim.

        1. Aya Katz profile image89
          Aya Katzposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I wasn't writing in support of stopping people or requiring ID. I was just making an observation. I would prefer it if the law were color blind and people were not labeled by ethnicity on any government form.

          1. livelonger profile image90
            livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I wasn't suggesting that you were. And I don't see how selecting your ethnicity on government forms is in any way relevant to this discussion.

            In practice, giving policemen the instruction to ask for documentation for people they think look illegal, will mean that "brown" people will be disproportionately singled out. That includes legal immigrants and US citizens, no matter what they did (or did not) select as their ethnicity on government forms.

            1. Aya Katz profile image89
              Aya Katzposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              There's no such thing as someone who "looks illegal." The legality isn't about looks. Does that law actually say something about "looking illegal"? If it does, then it is unconstitutional.

              1. livelonger profile image90
                livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The law says that the police can check a person's legal status if there is suspicion that they're an illegal alien. How do you imagine the police will suspect who to check?

                1. Aya Katz profile image89
                  Aya Katzposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Is the word "suspicion" in any way defined or delimited? If not, then it's a bad law. Not only would it promote racism, but a lot of mentally disabled or otherwise different people will get caught up in the web of suspicion. Often, people with autism spectrum disorders have a non-native accent even when they are native.

                  1. livelonger profile image90
                    livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, it is. It requires "reasonable/arguable suspicion." As you might imagine, this gives police officers considerable berth to decide what's considered suspicious. (It does give a lawsuit more heft than a mere hunch)

                    And, yes, lots of classes of people would be unfairly targeted. The idea that this will hone in on illegal immigrants is absurd. Police don't have ESP.

    28. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

      The good news is that because of the backlash and the ensuing counter-measures, the law has no chance of taking effect until at least 2012 if ever.

      Rush Limbaugh for some odd reason, decided to attack Flagstaff over this issue.  Flagstaff joined other Arizona Cities in suing the state over this mess, and Rush decided to stick his racist nose into things by calling on listeners to barrage Flagstaff city council members with e-mails.  Predictably, the wingnuts threw in some death threats with their moronic rants.
      Conservatives never learn, which I suppose is why they remain conservatives.

    29. Daniel Carter profile image90
      Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago

      If we are about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" along with preserving human rights, such laws will only create more criminals out of people who feel desperate already. I don't have a lot of answers for such issues, but ethically, I can't support laws that perpetuate bad treatment of people. The Arizona law is based on fear, as is much of political conservatism. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and others spout daily fear and hate mongering in an effort to incite reform. But the product of such stupidity is more stupidity, not rational, calm, humane dialog.

      1. DevLin profile image60
        DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Unlike the fear liberals tout that if the majority agrees, they're recists. Don't go to Arizona, they're racists. We're trying to survive. You'd rather see more of us dead to prove liberals are more accepting, tolerant? You even wanted to bring the Uighers over. Talk about extremists.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          What's a recist?  Is that a type of mankey?

        2. Daniel Carter profile image90
          Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Liberals and conservative are both false religions in my book. All I'm saying is that if we believe that there should be a sense of humane treatment for all people, that making laws as Arizona has is a mistake.

          I don't even understand what you're saying.

          1. DevLin profile image60
            DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Which part? It's simple. Liberals are basically against law. They preach cutting law enforcement, and let anyone in that wants to come in. Odd, so many of them like to use illegal drugs, that are also being brought in. The smugglers are killing, human trafficers are killing, and we're being told we're racists for enforcing federal law.
            What you don't get, is this pulling over just mexicans. They pulled anyone over before, the law said they couldn't ask for proof of being legal, even if they can't speak english. Now they can. You just automatically think it'll become a police state stopping anyone brown. As short cops as we are, they ain't got time for that.

            1. Daniel Carter profile image90
              Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Then what's your humane solution?

              1. DevLin profile image60
                DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Honestly, we created this mess with NAFTA. Then giving amnesty to 6 million illegals, showed them we'll take them all. Fox even printed out maps for illegals to cross. Our govt. backed him for it. Obama has already said there's no way we're sending them back, so create real long term jobs for everyone, and get mexico to actually create opps in their own country.. Or, enforce the law.
                That Slim dude is the richest in the world, and spending his cash in america. why? Thanks, bu help your own damn people. it was once said, there will be a NA monetary system. The Amero. It's startinng to look like we're really heading there. I think it's enforcing the law without just stopping people for no reason, or accepting mexico as another state. like Puerto Rico! Maybe even Cuba.

      2. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "ethically, I can't support laws that perpetuate bad treatment of people. "

        Does that concern extend to the citizens and legal residents of Arizona?

        1. Daniel Carter profile image90
          Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Duh.
          I think as Americans, we are all in favor of protecting our rights. The thing I'm saying is that if you wear someone else's shoes after watching them being treated unethically then you may have a desire to think beyond your own narrow of view of your own rights.

          That's all I'm saying. I don't want my right compromised nor do I want yours to be either.

          What's your point?

          1. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Allowing illegal immigration to go on as it has for so long absolutely perpetuates bad treatment of people; the people of Arizona and the illegal aliens themselves. There is no moral good to allowing the criminal behavior to continue. You need to consider the practical realities of your moral values and not just the temporary emotional impulses associated with them.

            1. DevLin profile image60
              DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              But which side is right in this? Republicans for never enforcing the law, or liberals for now wanting to forgive the illegals and give them amnesty? Either way, arizonans are screwed. Thus, the enforcement of the law.

            2. Daniel Carter profile image90
              Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I think we are in agreement in several areas. We agree on bad treatment, regardless of person. We apparently agree on other issues. We disagree, nonetheless, on others.

              What do you propose as a solution, Sab Oh?

              1. Sab Oh profile image60
                Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                If we really control the borders and enforce the laws already on the books most of the problems associated with this topic become moot.

                1. DevLin profile image60
                  DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  But if the feds enforce the law, wouldn't that be racist, when at the mexican border?

                  1. Aya Katz profile image89
                    Aya Katzposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    How would that be racist?

                    1. DevLin profile image60
                      DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      Looking for brown people. What arizona is being called racist for doing.

                  2. Sab Oh profile image60
                    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    NO, it would not.

                2. Daniel Carter profile image90
                  Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Although I don't pretend to be in the know about the preceding laws in AZ, I've wondered also why they weren't sufficient. It seems that enforcement of those laws is the first option, not making additional laws.

        2. JWestCattle profile image59
          JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You can review every pro-illegal immigration post about this topic and it's hard to impossible to squeeze a single drop of even empathy for the legal residents of Arizona.  That's a very sorry reflection of....I just don't know anymore, and it would be about pointless to try and express anyway.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You really don't get it do you?  All of the concern is about the LEGAL residents of Arizona.  The ones who will be rounded up along with the illegals because of their ethnicity. 

            You just don't know anymore?  You never did and never will.

            1. JWestCattle profile image59
              JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              No, you don't get it.  Being concerned about 'legal' residents having to show documents proving they are legal is one thing.  Being concerned about legal residents who are afraid to take a walk at night is a completely different issue -- one there is almost zip empathy for here among "pro-illegal" immigration folks.

              1. DevLin profile image60
                DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Rounded up? Where's that come from? Sheriff Joe? He's yet to round up a single legal. There isn't going to be any rounding up, other than what Joe keeps doing. Liberals see law as naziism?

                1. JWestCattle profile image59
                  JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You must have me confused with someone else.

              2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You do build one helluva strawman.

                1. JWestCattle profile image59
                  JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Wikipedia Definition: "A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic."

                  Had to look it up, it's not part of my every day vocabulary. And as I'm not as smart as you, you'll need to explain your inference.

    30. mega1 profile image81
      mega1posted 7 years ago

      It may not happen in my lifetime, but hopefully someday all borders will be open.  Some countries will charge for visas and have a quota because they don't need more tourism or immigration, but other countries will need the income and will welcome people to travel and work there.  I think eventually we will all have "international" identification that will be checked when we cross borders - like a driver's license - that will be linked to computer info on us.  Anyone who is not in the computer will get stopped.  But basically this system will give us all more freedom, less will be spent on keeping borders "secure" when borders are really mostly open.  It could work.  Life will be better for everyone when people don't feel they have to go to another country to make enough money to live and prosper.  So international labor payments will even out.  This means that capitalism will radically change so that people will not be able to take advantage of countries with lower income levels, because income levels will have evened out.  yes?

      1. DevLin profile image60
        DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The EU thought using the Euro would do that. I work for a german, and he tells me the same happens there with the Poles illegally immigrating. I forget who gives France so much grief as illegals. But it's worldwide, and as long as there's greed, there'll be protectionism.

        1. livelonger profile image90
          livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Europe is not a place we should turn to for guidance on how to treat ethnic minorities or immigrants of any type.

          1. DevLin profile image60
            DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Example only. She wants open borders with a universal ID.

      2. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "It may not happen in my lifetime, but hopefully someday all borders will be open. "


        I hope not.

    31. DevLin profile image60
      DevLinposted 7 years ago

      livelonger, I'm not for a national ID at all. Obama's supposedly talking a biometric SS card, and I'm not for that either. But you also asked about my freind the mexican. He lives in El Mirage, Az. Superb of phx. Hates dealing with illegals. When I was working, I was the few of the legals. Normally, I could care. The costs are getting out of hand though. The crimes are getting out of hand as well. For everyone to call us racist because we want the murders to stop, is just bugging me. They don't live this, yet feel they should dictate how we live. Like when Israel invaded Palestein. Dozens of rockets a day fired at them. Deaths and injuries, and they were the bad guys for trying to stop it.

      Sorry, but I couldn't respond up above. I don't know squat about this when it goes to permalink.

      1. livelonger profile image90
        livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You can be against illegal immigration without having to support this law.

        Again, how does your friend feel about this specific law? Will he be comfortable demonstrating his legal residency to police officers?

        (BTW, you can hit the reply button to reply)

        1. DevLin profile image60
          DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          My freind is okay with the law. Like I said, he wants them gone. His wife's from mexico also. She's not sure, but doesn't like them being here. But they don't mind showing ID.  His says his 3 daughters don't either, but I haven't talked to them yet. I'll ask now.

          as for reply, I wasn't given the option. Just more. it led to report, or permalink.

    32. BDazzler profile image83
      BDazzlerposted 7 years ago

      I have more than a few friends who are and have been police officers.  It is cop-ist (i.e. prejudiced against cops) to assume that they are all just like Mark Fuhrman.  If every cop is like Mark Fuhrman, then are all black people like Willie Horton?  Do all muslims fly planes into buildings?

      Why is this prejudiced behavior against police OK, suddenly?

      On any given day they are called to rescue toddlers from abusive parents, put their lives on the line because some drunk decided to "avoid a dui" by running from the cops and going the wrong way down a one way street, talk someone out of jumping off a bridge ...

      You ever sit with a guy who just sat and cried over the body of a two year old because he was a few seconds late? 

      These men and women put their lives on the line for us every day. The ones I know, of all races, don't get their jollies by harassing people.

      Police have always had a certain level of discretion about when to be suspicious and why ...  To suggest that all or even most local police officers are racist is quite prejudiced itself.

      1. livelonger profile image90
        livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Who's saying all or most? Even if it's just a few, the police officers have power to arrest people.

        If you ask your police friends, they'll probably admit they know other officers they would be uncomfortable with applying this law.

        1. BDazzler profile image83
          BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Why is this law open to any more abuse than any other law?  A bad cop will be abusive regardless of the laws. 

          One of the prevailing argument I'm seeing here is "This is a bad law because cops will abuse it, because they are racist."  Are you claiming that that has not been the argument made?

          Illegal is illegal.  The law abiding citizens and aliens of Arizona deserve the protection of their government.  The Fed hasn't so the state did. 

          Every illegal alien is, by definition, a criminal. Why is there more compassion for criminals than the law abiders?

        2. DevLin profile image60
          DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Just got off phone with my freind. He's all for it, and expects possible sidcrimination. Wife against anything from the govt. , but still wants the illegals gone. She worked the fields when she got here, and these new ones are buying new cars, houses and everything else from the welfare they collect, while their husbands work. Daughters are at work, can't ask them yet.

    33. prettydarkhorse profile image65
      prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago

      this event is  a precursor to a legislation in a more clearer light, I think it is a national concern not local only or federated ...
      Obama admin should be focusing on this ASAP, they cant deny anymore the many immigrants here specially illegals,

    34. DevLin profile image60
      DevLinposted 7 years ago

      Just got sent an article. Oklahoma and Minnesota are joining Texas in writing the same law. 2 Governor candidates are talking about it in Colorado, and the secretary of state candidate in Kansas is drumming up support for it there. This better hit the supreme cort before nov, or Obama will have to grant amnesty before then.

      I've said all along, it's a crime. Punish it with $1000 fine and kick them off subsidies. 12 million of them, how much money would that be, and how much saved?

    35. livelonger profile image90
      livelongerposted 7 years ago

      "Pro-illegal immigration"

      Another fantasy that conservatives like to paint about liberals.

      Add it to "pro-abortion", "anti-marriage", "anti-religion" and "anti-American."

      1. DevLin profile image60
        DevLinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Obama said it yesterday. We're not kicking them out. I'm just saying, make money off it then. I'm pro-common sense. Not all liberal ideas are good, but then again, not all conservative ideas are good either.

      2. JWestCattle profile image59
        JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Okay.

    36. rebekahELLE profile image90
      rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago

      I read this this morning.

      "State lawmakers proposed changes the phrase "lawful contact" to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" in order to clarify that officers would not need to question presumably innocent parties, such as crime victims or witnesses, about their immigration status. They also moved to eliminate the word "solely" from the sentence "A law enforcement official or agency... may not solely consider race, color or national origin" in establishing "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally. They also clarified that an officer is required to verify a person's immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" to doubt it when responding to city ordinance violations, which could include responding to loud parties or barking dogs. "

      either way, the state/local officers would be checking immigration status which is a federal responsibility, not the state.

    37. bill yon profile image56
      bill yonposted 7 years ago

      newsflash we are the world.and right now we are five to ten years out from an irreversible climate change.the big brains on the planet from EVERY country estimate we as humans may have 120 years left if we do not change.I can see clearly by all the bickering on the news and on these forums that we are all royally screwed.

      1. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think you got the wrong thread, pard.

    38. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

      http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u79/Sukeep/30831_417852551207_648101207_575711.jpg

      1. JWestCattle profile image59
        JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Good one, nice to see some humor.

    39. DevLin profile image60
      DevLinposted 7 years ago

      Okay, if this is true, Arizona has lost it's mind. According to Fox news, they just passed a new law. A ban on ethnic studies in schools. This from Fox:

      The new bill would make it illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

      The bill stipulates that courses can continue to be taught for Native American pupils in compliance with federal law and does not prohibit English as a second language classes. It also does not prohibit the teaching of the Holocaust or other cases of genocide.

      Now they've gone too far. Do whatever you want to them.

    40. JON EWALL profile image45
      JON EWALLposted 7 years ago

      hubbers
      The subject is illegal immigration and the present federal laws
      The federal government's irresponsibility in not enforcing the law
      The politicians say '' we are a nation of the rule of law''. The US constitution spells out the rights of their citizens.
      Break the law and you will be punished according to the law. What is racist and why are certain people exempt from breaking the law?
      What Arizona is saying to those who enter Arizona is that if you break our laws you will be punished according to the laws of Arizona.
      According to the constitution, states have the authority to make law for citizens of the state. Elected official voted into office by the citizens can vote to make law.
      If you or anyone don't like the laws on one state they are free to go to any other state.
      The premise is '' you are presumed innocent until you are found guilty'' by due process of the law.
      The Arizona law will start to be enforced in 90 days. That gives any illegal sufficient time to '' get out of town ''.70% of Arizonians support the law .
      The federal government's refusal to enforce the law is inexcusable and indefensible. The government is the real problem not the state of Arizona.

      THE FOLLOWING IS EXERPTS OF THE 1986 FEDERAL LAW

      SEC. 113. IMMIGATION EMERGENCY FUND.
      Section 404 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended by inserting "(a)" after "Sec. 404." and by adding at the end the following new subsection:
      "(b) There are authorized to be appropriated to an immigration emergency fund, to be established in the Treasury, $35,000,000, to be used to provide for an increase in border patrol or other enforcement activities of the Service and for reimbursement of State and localities in providing assistance as requested by the Attorney General in meeting an immigration emergency, except that no amounts may be withdrawn from such fund with respect to an emergency unless the President has determined that the immigration 0emergency exists and has certified such fact to the Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives and of the Senate.".

      SEC. 115. ENFORCEMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.
      It is the sense of the Congress that --
      (1) the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly, and
      (2) in the enforcement of such laws, the Attorney General shall take due and deliberate actions necessary to safeguard the constitutional rights, personal safety, and human dignity of United States citizens and aliens.
      "(1)(A) The State shall require, as a condition of an individual's eligibility for benefits under any program listed in subsection (b), a declaration in writing by the individual (or, in the case of an individual who is a child, by another on the individual's behalf), under penalty of perjury, stating whether or not the individual is a citizen or national of the United States, and, if that individual is not a citizen or national of the United States, that the individual is in a satisfactory immigration status.

      Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Jump to: navigation, search
      The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also Simpson-Mazzoli Act (Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, signed by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986) is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The Act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization), required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously. The Act also granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982.[1]


      A FEW YEARS AGO IMMIGRATION REFORM WAS PUT IN NEUTRAL.
      CONGRESS AGREED THAT THE BORDER MUST BE CLOSED BEFORE TALKING ABOUT A NEW LAW
      Today, the fences have been built and they still are coming across the border.
      Why are they coming, apparently they do not fear the penalties of breaking our laws.
      It's all about money, power and future votes. Arizona's new immigration law which is similar to the 1986 federal law has brought to the surface that our government isn't doing the job.

      1986 Federal Law section

      SEC. 115. ENFORCEMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.
      It is the sense of the Congress that --
      (1) the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly, and
      (2) in the enforcement of such laws, the Attorney General shall take due and deliberate actions necessary to safeguard the constitutional rights, personal safety, and human dignity of United States citizens and aliens.
      "(1)(A) The State shall require, as a condition of an individuals eligibility for benefits under any program listed in subsection (b), a declaration in writing by the individual (or, in the case of an individual who is a child, by another on the individuals behalf), under penalty of perjury, stating whether or not the individual is a citizen or national of the United States, and, if that individual is not a citizen or national of the United States, that the individual is in a satisfactory immigration status.
      NOTE (1) (A )
      eligibility for benefits under any program
      if that individual is not a citizen or national of the United States, that the individual is in a satisfactory immigration status.

      TAXPAYER COST PROVIDING GOVERNMENT BENEFITS $ 30 BILLION PER YEAR

      Denying them government entitlements will stop the illegals entering the country and those who are here will leave.

      A simple solution if the government was serious to protect the people of the US. We need to wake our elected officials up in Washington, they love hearing from their constituents.

      NOTE! NO MENTION OF ILLEGAL IS MENTIONED. IT MENTIONS ALIENS BUT ''that the individual is in a satisfactory immigration status.

    41. Sab Oh profile image60
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago

      And where the hell does the president of Mexico get off daring to put his nose into what laws the state of Arizona passes to protect its citizens? Beyond ridiculous.

      1. JWestCattle profile image59
        JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Beyond ridiculous, I completely agree.

    42. MikeNV profile image72
      MikeNVposted 7 years ago

      The MAJORITY of LEGAL Arizona citizens are behind this bill.  I read an article that said Arizona has 580,000 illegals taking 280,000 jobs.

      So yes there is a problem.

      The Elitist mainstream media is choosing to ignore the voice of the people who support this legislation and focus on the MINORITY who do not.

      You either enforce the law or you don't.  Because the Federal Government is not enforcing the law and the citizens of Arizona have to deal with the mess that is created by lack of enforcement they have chosen to exercise their right as a State to Govern themselves.

    43. JON EWALL profile image45
      JON EWALLposted 7 years ago

      HUBBERS pro and con
      In cities across our nation the activists were protesting the Arizona Immigration Law (which don't take effect for 90 days ), by the way is similar to the 1986 federal law.
      In other words the people are revolting against the law of the land. Our government is responsible to enforce the laws of our nation according to the letter of the law.
      We have an elected President and Congressman publicly condemning the Arizona law. How many times have you heard them say '' WE ARE A NATION OF THE RULE OF LAW ''.
      We the people should be contacting our Senators and Congressman questioning why the existing 1986 federal immigration law is NOT being enforced.
      The Arizona law will start to be law in 90 days, the federal law has been law for many many years .The Justice Department needs to obey the law and start enforcing the law.

      SEC. 115. ENFORCEMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.( 1986 )
      It is the sense of the Congress that --
      (1) the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly, and

      1. TheSituation profile image77
        TheSituationposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Kudos!  I agree 100%.  Very well put!!

     
    working