ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Arizona Has Stirred The Pot

Updated on June 19, 2010

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has stirred the pot with her new Arizona immigration law recently passed. Very quickly this has turned into a very hot button topic. My suspicion is that as we draw nearer the mid-term elections, it's going to get even hotter.

The fact is that there is a lot of dissent from none other than the Congress and the Senate. And the president isn't a big fan of the Arizon immigration law either. Already, certain groups have begun to initiate lawsuits, and in some areas of California some politcians are calling on their citizens to even boycott Arizona because of the law.

However, if you took a poll today, it would be clear as the sky is blue that the majority of Americans are in support of the Arizona law. In fact, several other states in the union are now even considering signing similar bills into law in their own states.

And it makes sense.

By the way, I think it is important to point out as I did in my earlier hub, "ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW IS SPOT ON," that the new law does not really change anything. What it does do is simply creates an apparatus for enforcing existing immigration law, and specifically, enforcing Arizona immigration laws which have been on the books since 2007.

On Facebook, someone in a discussion on the immigration law commented that he thought the bill was unconstitutional based on the fact that the law provides that suspected aliens must produce documents to prove their citizenship. "(The bill) clouded the issue by putting in the 'papers please!' clauses that is reminiscent of the Holocaust."

The Holocaust? Really?

This is not about American citizens having to prove they are among the master race. This is not about racism. This is not about genocide. This is not about cleansing. We're not going to send anyone into a gas chamber, we're simply going to ask them who they are after they have already been arrested for breaking another law. If it is found that they are not legal, they will serve their time and then be sent home.

In all fairness, the commenter did say, "I normally hate using that analogy but I don't know what else to compare it to." But here was the part that got me fired up when he said, "Requiring legal immigrants or just citizens of Hispanic heritage to carry around documents to prove they're here legally is ridiculous and unconstitutional."

Unconstitutional? Really, what planet are you on? 

First, if you are not a citizen of this country you are not bound by the Constitution. Even if you are a citizen, being able to produce proof you are who you say you are, and are where you belong is not unconstitutional by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. And again, this law provides for people already in police custody for other crimes. Nobody is going to pull Mexican looking people off the streets and force them to produce documents. That's not what the bill is designed to do.

And what of proof? What of carrying documents to prove all sorts of things in this country? Is that, too, unconstitutional?

If I want to drive my car down the street I have to carry my driver's license to prove that I have the right to drive. If I want to practice medicine I must have a degree on my wall in my office, and a license issued by the state to prove that I have the right to be a doctor. If I run a business, I have to display documents to prove I am licensed to run a business, and I have to prove that I am in compliance with other certain ordinances and laws, such as in the restaurant business having to have health department documents clearly displayed.

Many times in the real world government officials show up and ask for proof. Go to a construction site some time. You have to have permits to carry on with the project. And if a building inspector shows up, you better have the permit with you. And if you've got electricians on scene, or plumbers, they'll have to potentially produce licenses or other certifications.

It's a very simple question with a very simple answer. Are you here legally? Yes, or no?

Why is it not unethical to ask someone a question like that? Why is it not unconstitutional? Because people really are jumping the border, it really does pose risks to the safety of every American, and it really does cost taxpayers enormous amounts of money, and because the problem is rampant and epidemic right now.

As for the lawmakers? Let me make this loud and clear. If you are against the Arizona immigration law, republican or democrat or tea party or whoever, I will not vote for you. Period.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Tom Whitworth profile image

      Tom Whitworth 7 years ago from Moundsville, WV


      This is truly a tempest in a teapot. If I get stopped by a WV State Trooper I must present ID. If I go to my bank to cash my own check on my checking account I must present ID. If I go to an airport to fly I must present ID. What's the bru ha ha all about!!!!!!!!!!!

    • breakfastpop profile image

      breakfastpop 7 years ago

      Terrific writing. Let's face it this is just further proof that common sense is dead and buried. Apparently, in Alabama driving tests are given in Arab and Farsi and every other language you can think of. Tell me, when was the last time you saw a road sign printed in Farsi? Arizona is doing what the federal government was supposed to do a long time ago. It is because of the government's failure to enforce their own laws that we have all these problems now.

    • maven101 profile image

      maven101 7 years ago from Northern Arizona

      There are many Hispanics that support this law as evidenced by the 70% approval statewide, considering Arizona's Hispanic population is 34%...many that have been here legally for generations resent those that attempt to bypass the statutory laws required for citizenship...

      Great commentary,,,Thanks, Larry

    • sheila b. profile image

      sheila b. 7 years ago

      You said it all so beautifully. And why now? Why, after years and years of the problem, is something finally being done? Crime. The drug runners, the kidnappings, and then the cold-blooded killing of the rancher. Too bad the Federal government doesn't value the lives of America's citizens.

    • eovery profile image

      eovery 7 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

      When is it illegal to enforce a low. If this law does not stand in Arizona, we do not have any immigration laws. You might consider our borders to be wide open...we can enforce keeping people out

      Keep on hubbing!

    • carolina muscle profile image

      carolina muscle 7 years ago from Charlotte, North Carolina

      The people of Arizona have the right to see immigration laws enforced.. and pedigree information is required of anyone when dealing with law enforcement officials, anyway.

      Very clearly stated case!!

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      Tom, to be quite honest I don't get it either. I've pointed out numerous examples of having to produce proof of something, and you've presented some more in your comment...the list goes on. Every single day Americans are asked to verify who they are. Why NOT Mexican Americans too? Or any group for that matter? It just doesn't make any sense.

      POP, it is true we seem to be becoming a country of caterers to other parties, and it seems to me that (and I could be wrong here) that years ago when people immigrated here they embraced American culture. Now, instead, they come here and shove their culture down our throats, make every attempt to change our culture to match their own vision, and cry foul when they don't get their way...

      And THEN we get called unamerican on top of it all.

      BTW, I wonder if you have to press a number on your telephone in Mexico for spanish? I would hardly think so, el patron. Another pondering question is IF you've come here wanting to be an American, why not put an American flag on your rear view mirror instead of hanging the flag of Mexico there? It's a bit of a mockery if you ask me and it causes me to suspect what your intentions are in MY country.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      maven, as they should. I touched on this point a little bit in my earlier hub, "Arizona Immigration Law Is Spot On." In many ways it really does come down to what's fair. It's like making some silly rule that only green cars, red cars, and orange cars will be stopped for speeding...

      The rest may drive as fast as they want.

      If you are on the roadway, you are subject to the rules. And if there is enough reason to suspect you are doing something wrong, the police have the right to pull you over and ask you a few questions about it.

      Thanks for stopping in and leaving a comment.

    • drbj profile image

      drbj and sherry 7 years ago from south Florida

      You are "spot on," with this hub, Springboard. (nicomp taught me that phrase).

      The governor of Arizona enacted a law that was not only necessary for her state but is needed throughout the U.S.

      It will never pass muster in DC though. The Emperor woul have to produce his mythical birth certificate.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      sheila b., sad but true.

      eovery, that's the one thing that makes this entire argument so ridiculous. We're simply saying we have laws on the books. SOMEONE is being paid to enforce them. So let's simply ENFORCE them. I don't get the hoopla.

      carolina muscle, funny you mention the word pedigree. You know, if I'm breeding dogs I can't even sell you a schnauzer AS a schnauzer without documentation. AND I don't care if that schnauzer can fly an airplane, he'll get accepted into NO dog show, nor will he be allowed to be used to breed more "official" schnauzers without papers to PROVE he's a schnauzer.

      NOT that I'm making any references whatsoever to Mexicans being compared to dogs. Still...

      drbj, I'm not one in the "birther" camp. Still. It DOES raise a question now that you mention it. :)

    • Pamela99 profile image

      Pamela Oglesby 7 years ago from United States

      This hub is right on. We have to show our drivers license, insurance and car registration if stopped by the police. I showed my drivers license yesterday to get lab work. The doctors offices make copies and many times you must show it when you are using a charge cared. I have no problem with any of that. Why would it be a problem for a Mexican to carry a drivers license or state ID if they are here legally?

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      Absolutely right, Pamela. I would only add that every single time I have ever applied for a job, and this would include back when I was in high school as well, I had to fill out an I-9 form, I had to show my ID/Driver's license, AND I also had to produce a physical copy of my social security card. Not once did I ever find that to be unfair or unconstitutional, nor did I ever find it to even be an inconvenience.

    • lctodd1947 profile image

      lctodd1947 7 years ago from USA

      I appreciate the fact that people want to live a different life in America, anyone would but as long as they do it the right way..and we certainly do not need any more violence and crime..there are laws they should go by (which I know is sometimes they cannot do) getting their work visa etc. We have to have a passport to go abroad. We cannot go if we do not have one...right? So, what is wrong with doing things as they should be done. I am with trying to limit our crime in the USA.

      Nice hub...thanks for sharing.

    • jdunbar profile image

      jdunbar 7 years ago

      Thanks for putting this all into perspective. Like someone else said, this is just commen sense law! Great hub bro!

    • garynew profile image

      garynew 7 years ago from Dallas, TX and Sampran, Thailand

      very good hub, 4 stars!

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      Thanks Sis. By the way, I love seeing you here. :)

      Garynew, thanks. I definitely appreciate the validation. I mean, who can argue with 4 stars?

    • entertianmentplus profile image

      entertianmentplus 7 years ago from United States

      You are right on with this hub. AZ should have the right to enforce this law. I do not think its unreasonable at all.Thanks for a great hub.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      lctodd, exactly.

      Me either, entertainment. What IS unreasonable to me is having a law and not enforcing it. The Arizona law provides for enforcement.

    • CMHypno profile image

      CMHypno 7 years ago from Other Side of the Sun

      Interesting Hub, Springboard. Immigration issues always seem to push a lot of buttons and cause a lot of controversy. In the UK we are coming to the end of our general election campaigning and the anxieties caused by too high levels of immigration appears to be the elephant in the room for all our main political parties. Not helped by a prime minister who is not savvy enough to turn his mic off calling a pensioner a bigot for asking a straight forward question on immigration from Eastern Europe

    • prasetio30 profile image

      prasetio30 7 years ago from malang-indonesia

      nice information from you.I also try to get many information around the world, especially from US. And I found the new one from this hub. Good work, my friend.

    • Bail Up ! profile image

      Bail Up ! 7 years ago

      Two thumbs up to Arizona for looking out for the best interest of its residents. The rest of the USA should be so lucky as to have similar leadership in their states.

    • Hello, hello, profile image

      Hello, hello, 7 years ago from London, UK

      There is nothing wrong with Law and Order which you have to have. It is only the guilty ones who don't like it. Well it is there problems. I wish they had it in England. A third wouldn't have one and the next 20% have faked ones.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      CMHypno, certainly it is a very hot button topic. The problem here in the US gets eacerbated by the influx of drug cartels and all of the violence that goes along with it. The rancher that was killed in Arizona was sort of the clincher in this one, still the federal govt. is yeilding much opposition—strangely enough.

      Prasetio, great to see you. Glad I could add some information to your base. Thanks for commenting.

      Bail Up, absolutely. Pardon my French, but I'd to see way more politicians with balls like Jan Brewer has to make a stand for what's right, and what's in the best interest of the American people than what's good to win an election—incidentally, this WILL PROBABLY HELP HER to win an election...

      Hello Hello, law and order is essential to a civilized society. Thanks for stopping by and commenting. :)

    • jjmyles profile image

      jjmyles 7 years ago from Pacific Northwest

      Hooray for Arizona! I am going there to spend my vacation dollars to off set the boycot crap! I hope others will support the state as well!

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      Absolutely everybody should, and any other state for that matter who is in support of the bill, and who is instituting similar laws in their own states as well.

    • profile image

      JimsrPops 7 years ago

      Your hub was "right on", son. Watched a debate on this subject. One of the guests was the Rev. Sharpton. Of course he was vehemently opposed to this bill in Arizona. He called it "racial profiling". I loved Bill Maier's response. "Rev. Sharpton, if little green men came to earth from another planet, and we tried to round-em-up, you would , I suspect,jump on their bandwagon too. Our inalienable rights include my right to disagree with you!"

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      lol. I'd love to have seen the reaction on Sharpton's face. You know, the racial profiling accusation always bothers me. As I said in my former hub, "Arizona Immigration Law Is Spot On," it's not really about profiling race as it is about profiling crime. Criminal profiling is a more appropriate term, and where it so happens to be that a particular race is more heavily concentrated in a particular area, it stands to reason that the ratio of stops would be at a higher percentage WHATEVER the race...

      As would, in those areas, be the crime rate itself.

      Maybe it's a silly analogy. But when you know deer meat is venison, and you're out in the woods hunting for venison, it doesn't make any sense shooting at a Moose.

    • katiem2 profile image

      katiem2 7 years ago from I'm outta here

      Springboard, Powerful HUB, WHAT I have this to say about this topic... When I drive my candy apple red sports car a wee bit over the speed limit, I get pulled over and ticketed, I have to pay the fine plane and simple. NOW no body ever boycotted profiling for us red sports car drivers. Please Really As IF! The Law is the Law and if you look like your breaking the law, it's the laws duty to check you out and determine the facts! Do the crime do the time or pay the fine which ever the case maybe. That's AMERICA! Thanks and Peace :)

    • BJBenson profile image

      BJBenson 7 years ago from USA

      This is a pot that is going to boil over. I'm just waiting to see who this person was, who try to blow up Time Square.

      Great hub. Keep up the good work.I think this subject just makes me so mad!!!!!!


      Sorry, I'm ranting like an old woman.I must go take my pills!

    • kschang profile image

      kschang 7 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA

      The problem is not with the law, but its POTENTIAL for abuse. In this case, the potential was vastly exaggerated by people who pander to fears. Even tonight, there was a local TV talk show on a Intl station that invited a lawyer to talk about the law. Except the lawyer was citing the law from five days ago, BEFORE Governor Brewer revised it! What a joke! I wrote them a scathing e-mail correcting the poor guy.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      katiem, and you know I'm reminded of that British couple honeymooning in Dubai who were arrested for kissing in public. It's a ridiculous law. Still, it's THEIR law, and however mundane it may seem, they upheld it. It is the duty of those who come to our country to be respectful of our customs and traditions, and to especially respect our laws. I don't think we would ever be allowed to enter THEIR countries and start throwing demands around for them to conform to OUR WAYS.

      It shouldn't happen here either.

      BJBenson, it's a wake up call.

      kschang, I love the phrasing "The problem is not with the law, but its POTENTIAL for abuse." Yeah, the FEDERAL law that is ALREADY THE LAW is not only NOT being ENFORCED, but is being ABUSED and EXPLOITED by criminals.

      I'd love to read your email. :)

    • kschang profile image

      kschang 7 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA

      @Springboard -- yes, there's *some* truth the laws exploited by criminals... but usually, in a democratic society, it's better to err on the side of the rights of the public vs. the rights of the police, eh?

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      In this case I disagree. The fact that illegals are permitted to be in my country and work, use services, and not be called out by law enforcement for which I pay taxes to support, is an infringement on my rights as an American citizen. As a citizen the law does not bend for me.

      BTW, I should point out that law enforcement is not afforded "rights." Under the law they have no rights whatsoever. They do, however, have legal limitations and obligations UNDER the law.

    • kschang profile image

      kschang 7 years ago from San Francisco, CA, USA

      @Springboard -- well, the point is when it comes to interpreting laws that defines the rights of public vs. obligations of the police (i.e. police powers), democratic societies tend to lean toward the public rather than the police. I know that's a very broad generalization.

    • ehern33 profile image

      ehern33 7 years ago

      Great Hub. My parents were Hispanic and immigrated here to the US legally during World War II. I know first hand the attraction that the US has and the desperation it may cause to some wanting to leave a less than desirable country, to say the least. I have to agree with the Arizona law, simply because it is the right thing to do. If you want to live in this country, do it legally and contribute to the society as we all do. Most of these illegal's are hard working people and take on jobs that others may not want to, but at the end of the day, no taxes are paid, the money they make is often times sent back home and they get the benefits some of us won't even qualify for. Arizona has a tremendous problem and all they are doing is protecting themselves with a common sense law. Once in a while we have to have one slip through the cracks. Great hub and couldn't agree with you more.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      kschang, right. But police do not interpret the law either. They only enforce the laws on the books. It is for the courts to decide whether or not the police have acted in accordance WITH law.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      Ehern, great to see you, and thanks for sharing your story. I've long held that LEGAL immigrants should absolutely support the bill because it protects all Americans. If you are legal, you are an American. You are afforded to be protected by the same laws you are obligated to abide by.

    • prettydarkhorse profile image

      prettydarkhorse 7 years ago from US

      it is logical and since this country is federated, let the officials enforce they own law. People and the government in that should protect all the people in the area in ensuring that everybody follows the law. That is why there is law. And illegal immigration is just simply illegal.

      Your hub is simple, well explained and you put valid points, Springboard.

      Have a good day, I enjoy reading this one, Maita

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      Protection of Americans is key in all of this. Thanks for stopping by Maita.

    • profile image

      ChristopherD 7 years ago

      As I stand up and start applauding for some reason. Clapping even harder than when my daughters accomplish a task or sport.

      Very well written. Thank you for getting it out there better than me most definitely. I salute you.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      Christopher, thanks for the applause. I can only say I believe what I believe passionately, and am not willing to keep it bottled up.

      Very much appreciate the compliment and the salute. Obviously you and I are both strong patriots and truly American.

    • profile image

      SueDoeNim 7 years ago

      The problem with your argument is it's flawed. It is Unconstitutional, but not for the reasons you profess. It's Unconstitutional because it's the Federal governments job to deal with immigration, not the individual state. It's because it's an international affair, not one of the individual state.

      The other issue is the way it's worded. It's not worded to say a Police officer is to check the immigration status of a person who has been caught doing a crime. It's says, "reasonable suspicion".

      I'd this definitely falls under unreasonable search and seizure and there is plenty of precedent set in SCOTUS to agree with that statement.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      With all due respect I believe you happen to be another one of those sort of people who comment on a bill without having read the bill. The first very important thing to note is that you are correct. It IS the responsibility of the federal government to deal with immigration. In fact, the Arizona law is nearly identical—if you've read them you would know this—to the current federal law, which has been the law for some years. You are also correct to point out "reasonable suspicion" as being the prerequisite to questioning anyone. Still, I think it has clearly been stated that no one is going to pull anyone off the streets to ask them for papers. But if they have been actively engaged in a crime, and police are investigating, certainly if reasonable suspicion is present that the person being investigated in connection with the crime is not a legal resident, he may be asked to produce papers.

      The big problem is that the federal government is not enforcing a law already on the books. This imposes issues for the residents of Arizona, and costs money to Arizona taxpayers. Citizens have a right to be protected by the laws, and the lawmakers have an obligation to ensure that the laws are strictly enforced. This is what this law does.

      It is not in any way unconstitutional.

    • profile image

      SueDoeNim 7 years ago

      Reasonable suspicion is a gray area that could fall under illegal search and seizure, clearly unconstitutional. It would be hard for any LEO to prove that a routine vehicle stop wasn't racial profiling. Immigration being a federal issue could fall under provide for common defence, but that is a reach of course.Why not force businesses in AZ to use E Verify which AZ already requires? Force every worker to submit an I9 form. Every state has illegals. Latino illegals are only a portion of the illegals in this country. To pretend otherwise is ignorant. There are millions of illegal Asians, Europeans, and Africans here ( and a few thousand Canadians). I have to also think that if Reagan hadn't given amnesty in the first place, we wouldn't have the numbers we do today.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      We don't have amnesty in this country. What we do have is a very big problem that needs to be solved. We're not going to solve it by giving these people a pass. I think it's a huge stretch to suggest that reasonable suspicion would be used in the way you've described.

      We have to look at the big picture. We can't sit and do nothing. I agree with you that employers should be stopped from hiring...this bill does that. It's a 16 page bill. Take the time to read it. I think it could change your mind as to how it can be used effectively, and how similar it is to the federal law.

      This bill does not divert from the current federal law. It is an apparatus to enforce the federal law already on the books.

    • profile image

      SueDoeNim 7 years ago

      As for a stretch with reasonable suspicion, Waco and Ruby Ridge. More so Ruby Ridge.

      I will read it tomorrow. I still believe its the Feds job to take care of international affairs. What do you think we should do with illegals once we find them?

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      SueDoeNim, again it IS the fed's job. The Arizona law mirrors the federal law. The Arizona law takes action where the federal law is not being enforced. When the states begin to become affected negatively by non-enforcement of federal law, do they have a right to have recourse? I think they absolutely do.

      As for what we do with illegals once we find them, I think we deport them. That's the law. The law says they shall be deported.

      That said, it is impractical for us, as a country, to ever deport ALL illegals. There's simply too many of them. But we also cannot offer simple amnesty as it creates an incentive to illegally enter the country.

      Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columist offered a very interesting solution IMO. We direct our efforts toward sealing the borders. We build the fence, we allow troops on the border, and we step up efforts to patrol the borders. When we receive reports indicating that 95% of all illegal immigration has been curtailed, NOW we can offer a path to citizenship to those illegal immigrants who are already here. This path includes a fine, a requirement to learn English, and civics courses.

      I think this idea is the best I've heard and support it.

    • JonesChicago profile image

      JonesChicago 7 years ago from Chicago, Illnois

      Springboard: You are right on the money. Too many people today have forgotten or choose to ignore that a State is an sovereign entity and when the Federal Government is not doing the job needed it falls to the state and its citizens to uphold the laws and enforce them. Given the job the Government has been doing over the past few years of course states are going to step things up to protect their citizens and their citizens families.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      Well said Jones. What gets me more than anything is that it IS a federal law and here we have lawmakers who basically are denouncing an enforcement law. I don't understand the logic behind that. Just another giant example why the status quo needs to be washed out.

    • K J Page profile image

      K J Page 7 years ago from Pacific Northwest

      Springboard: I couldn't agree with you more - I just moved to Nevada and you wouldn't believe the fun it was to prove to everyone that I was legal to drive, work, open a bank account, get a post office box, rent an apartment get a medical certificate in order to keep my license and the list goes on!! And not just one piece of paper, but always two pieces of ID - usually photo, SS or birth certificate - if we Americans - bred and born here have to do it why are the Mexicans raising so much noise over it?? Why is Washington listening to the blah, blah, blah? Washington has set about setting one state against another - united we stand - divided we fall - Washington has begun the division of the states.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      Americans are second fiddle these days it would seem to me. We now are required to take a backseat to make way for the new. How sickening, hey?

    • Granny's House profile image

      Granny's House 7 years ago from Older and Hopefully Wiser Time

      Do we not have to carry a visa when we go to another country? What is a visa but permission to enter that country!

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      Not just that, but in our own country we're required to identify ourselves as well. Try getting a job without providing an SSN.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa


      AN UPDATE ON AZ SB 1070

      the full text of SB 1070 can be reviewed on the Arizona republic website.

      I have done a short summary of the bill for anyone who would prefer going directly to sections of interest.


      It is apparent that the protests in various cities were premature and that many of the protesters will not given the true facts of the Arizona law. The Arizona

      legislature has made changes in the initial bill signed by Governor Brewer.Remarks from President Barak Obama, Congressional members, Attorney General Holder and other cabinet members were made before they took the time to review the Arizona law. Members of the AFL-CIO , Raza and other Hispanic groups were guilty of inciting the Spanish/ Mexican communities.

      A short version of the Arizona SB1070 , the full text of SB 1070

      The Arizona Immigration Bill SB 1070 has been amended recently .

      Section 1

      The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative

      enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona……………

      Section 2

      2a. No official or agency of this state or a county, or other political

      subdivision of this state may adopt a policy that limit’s the enforcement of

      federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law

      …………….section 2 is an amendment 2a thru l

      Section 3

      13-1509. willful failure to complete or carry an alien document; assessment;

      exception; authenticated records; classification section 3 is amended 13a thru h

      Section 4

      13-2319 smuggling; classification; definitions………section 4 is amended 4e

      Section 5

      13-2928 unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for work; unlawful

      application, solicitation or employment; classification; definitions…………..

      sect 5 is amended 5a thru g2

      13-2929 unlawful transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding

      of unlawful aliens; vehicle impoundment; exception ;classification….amended a thru f

      Section 6

      13-3883 arrest by officer without warrant…………amended a5

      Section 7

      23-212 knowingly employing unauthorized aliens ;prohibition ;false and

      frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and

      revocation; affirmative defense………… k and l

      Section 8

      23-212.01. Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false

      and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and

      revocation ;affirmative defense………….new k and l

      Section 9

      23-214 verification of employment eligibility; e-verify program; economic

      development incentives ;list of registers employees…………new a


      8-3511,amended 28-3511 removal and immobilization or impoundment of

      vehicle……….anew a4,a5


      41-1724 gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund…

      …..all new

      Section 12 severability, implementation and construction …………..

      b. the terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to have the

      meanings given to them under federal immigration law

      c. this act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws

      regarding, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges

      and immunities of united states citizens.

      Section 13

      Short title …….

      Section 14 immigration legislation challenges …. New a and b

      Robt Robb wrote in a Article in the Arizona Republic on 5/23/10

      In a press conference with Barak Obama , Calderon objected to the Arizona law

      because it criminalizes illegal immigration. Existing federal law, however makes

      it a misdemeanor to be in this country without proper papers. Arizona law simply

      adopts this federal offense by reference.

      Moreover, in the Yuma sector, the Federal Government is incarcerating those

      who are caught crossing the border illegally. It has resulted in a significant

      decrease in illegal border crossings in that sector.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      John, thanks for taking the time to share. In my view, it is SO important the people are aware of what's actually in the bill, and how much it mirrors existing federal law.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa


      President Obama is going to send up to 1200 national guard to the border.He didn't state when they would be sent.

      They ( political brain dead politicians in Washington ) just don't get it! Sending more men and waisting more money will not do the job simply because the government isn't enforcing the immigration laws. Catch and Release is not doing the job,talking about amnesty or immigration reform only encourages them coming.

      No law can be effective unless there is punishment for breaking the law. See Reference :


      "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

      U.S. Code, Title 8 § 1324(a) Offenses

      Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

      Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than

      Robt Robb wrote in an Article in the Arizona Republic on 5/23/10

      In a press conference with Barak Obama , Calderon objected to the Arizona law

      because it criminalizes illegal immigration. Existing federal law, however makes

      it a misdemeanor to be in this country without proper papers. Arizona law simply

      adopts this federal offense by reference.

      Moreover, in the Yuma sector, the Federal Government is incarcerating those

      who are caught crossing the border illegally. It has resulted in a significant

      decrease in illegal border crossings in that sector.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 7 years ago from Wisconsin

      Still, I believe sending troops to the border is absolutely essential, though ineffective overall if it is not used in conjunction with enforcing immigration law and building the fence up in areas where there is a higher influx of border crossings.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa


      PRESENTLY ICE IN MOST CASES DEPORTS THE VIOLATORS. This kind of operation does not work or stop the flow. No law is effective without punishment for breaking the law.

      Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(I) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both

      The solution is to enforce the law to the fullest. Instead do more FENCING and border patrol .Construct internment camps within our borders. Incarceration will slow and stop the flow. The other millions of unauthorized aliens will go voluntary if the government stops giving government entitlements to them.

      It's simple and less costly, justice must be served for we are a country of the rule of law. Washington and Barak Obama needs to do their job.

    • profile image

      NoAmnesty 6 years ago

      Here in South Carolina there were just 25 immigrants with "false documents caught entering an air force base. Apparently they were employed by a subcontractor. Two of the 25 were arrested, apparently for previous crimes, while 21 were told to "come back" for an immigration hearing.Yeah, right! These people are guilty not only of being in the country illegally but of having a false identity. They should never have been released. This is scary business! We caught them this time but how many more are entering our military bases through subcontractors? Some day one of these illegals will have more than work on his mind. Where is the oversight of who has access to our military installations?

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 6 years ago from Wisconsin

      That's a very scary thought indeed. There is already a heightened issue of national security simply by HAVING borders so easily breached. One wonders if we had a terrorist issue in our own ranks at Fort Hood, what might the outcome be in a case where actual illegally immigrated folks with terrorist ties get access to our military installations as you suggest? And when do you think the terrorists might consider Pedro might want to make a few extra bucks than the farmer will pay him to pick lettuce to do far more sinister things?

      America needs to wake up and wise up. And frankly Barack Obama needs to pull his head out of his ass—and he's not the only one. This issue is a much bigger one than most are letting on, and the thought that there's a ton of complacency about this is a VERY scary thought.

    Click to Rate This Article