jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (65 posts)

Judge Blocks Parts Of AZ Immigartion Law SB1070

  1. leeberttea profile image53
    leebertteaposted 7 years ago

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07 … w-dispute/

    There will still have to be a ruling on whether or not those parts are constitutional.

  2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    This is great news (for compassionate people).  The first step in a long series of upcoming defeats for bigots.  The judge would not have issued the injunction if she was leaning toward approving the law.


    smile  smile  smile  smile  smile

    1. ledefensetech profile image71
      ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You really don't get it do you Ron.  All the AZ law does is mirror federal law.  Since it doesn't conflict, how can the judge ruling parts of the AZ law unconstitutional still keep the federal law intact.  You really might try listening a bit more before you start talking.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I do listen to the people who make the absurd claim that the law is just.  I reject their ridiculous arguments in the same manner that Judge Bolton has.

        You should read the Constitution sometime.  It's intentionally vague in parts (second amendment), but crystal clear as to who controls immigration policy.

        You could perhaps read the judge's reasoning before commenting further.  It will save you the embarrassment of a retraction later.

        1. ledefensetech profile image71
          ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The whole point of the AZ law was to illustrate how the feds have been ignoring the problem for decades.  The previous administration ignored the law in order to get cheap labor in the US and the current administration ignores the law to encourage immigration right into welfare so that their "base" will increase. 

          Is the AZ law ideal?  No.  But it has served it's purpose by starting a national dialogue on the issue, which was sorely needed.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The dialog has been going on for decades.  It's heating up now because the economy has certain elements of society fearful and looking for scapegoats.  Brewer has successfully added this element to her side by passing legislation that she knew would never clear the courts.  She gets the redneck vote without actually having to further smash the state's budget with actual enforcement of this travesty of justice.

            There actually was a time where, in a rare instance of bi-partisanship, comprehensive immigration reform, was nearly passed.  Republican leadership suddenly realized that most of these new immigrants would vote for Democrats and suddenly their values changed.

            The canard of Federal apathy regarding border enforcement is often parroted, but never able to stand up to statistical review.  The number of illegals in this country, (and particularly Arizona) has been decreasing for 2 years.  The Feds have rightfully been targeting drug lords and violent criminals while paying less attention to lettuce pickers and landscapers.

            1. ledefensetech profile image71
              ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              It's heating up because illegals are overloading the social welfare programs in this country.  CA was the first to feel it and is feeling it again by all accounts:  http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/10 … -illegal10

              This is the most astonishing quote:

              The Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, based in Palo Alto, has analyzed research on the costs of illegal immigration. Most studies show that at least in the short term, illegal immigrants, who tend to be poorer and have more children than average, use more in public services than they contribute in taxes, the center found.

              But the center's director, Stephen Levy, said some of the long-term effects were positive. Educating illegal immigrant children, for instance, helps them eventually land better jobs and higher salaries, benefiting Californians with increased tax payments and more sophisticated work skills.

              So California, which is broke, is supposed to support illegal immigrants because their kids might grow up and get good paying jobs, thereby creating more tax revenue?  That could take 20 years or more.  CA is broke now. 

              Plus there's the crime issue.  The following is from 2000 and so a bit dated, but it would not be beyond belief if the trends found in 2000 were to have continued over the last decade.

              http://www.urban.org/publications/410366.html

              This is the most intriguing part of the summary:



              Like I said.  AZ has started the dialogue that the federal government has been avoiding for quite some time now.

              1. lovemychris profile image59
                lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                That's true I read that too...in fact, deportations have increased since Obama. And he is targeting businesses and criminals, not people who just come here like all OUR ancestors did!!! Hello.

                1. ledefensetech profile image71
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  We didn't have an immigration policy until the 1920's.  Which is why our population increased massively until the 1920's.  Most of our ancestors came here because the US had an open door immigration policy. 



                  Just as true today as when it was penned.

                2. wilderness profile image99
                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry, Chris, YOUR ancestors may have snuck in in the dead of night and lived out their lives running from police as criminals.  MINE didn't.  They took care of any immigration needs as they came.  They didn't require anyone else to feed them, or doctor them or educate their children.  They did it themselves until the community was large enough to cooperatively build and staff such things as schools and doctor's offices.  If they didn't produce enough food for themselves they went hungry.

                  They didn't require everyone already here to fit into THEIR lifestyle; they adapted to what was here and became Americans.  They didn't protest and riot in the streets because they couldn't have whatever they wanted; they made their own way without help from either their old OR new country.  They helped improve this country, not drag down.

    2. prettydarkhorse profile image64
      prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago

      This is good news!

    3. leeberttea profile image53
      leebertteaposted 7 years ago

      To be sure only parts of the law have been blocked by a temporary injunction, the rest of the law still goes into effect tomorrow. I think this will be appealed and go on to the Supreme Court.

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
        prettydarkhorseposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        still good news and the most important part of it -- the most controversial one was blocked,
        this will be a long battle and will decide the election soon and on 2012

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Like the new avatar Pretty.

          1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
            prettydarkhorseposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            ok, thank you RON< please make me smile today, where are your jokes

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              North Korea and rightwing leftwing threads are pretty funny today.

              1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
                prettydarkhorseposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                yeah I read that one and I was laughing, thanks

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, by way of the 9th circuit.  The most heinous portions will be blocked for at least 2 years.  That's a start.

    4. leeberttea profile image53
      leebertteaposted 7 years ago

      Funny, no one seems to mind that the feds already have a program for doing exactly what AZ is doing. Where is the outrage against Obama on this?

      http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/s … nities.htm

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
        prettydarkhorseposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        people will always blame OBAMA for whatever is happening on their or other people's lives, I cant understand that.
        Just ask MikeNV

        1. leeberttea profile image53
          leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          He's the Chief executive of the country isn't he? He's in charge of immigration right? That's why his justice department sured AZ isn't it? Isn't ICE a part of his administraion? Seems to me this IS his fault.

          1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
            prettydarkhorseposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Just like what I have said people will always blame him whatever happens, he do this, he do that, they will always blame him, Let us give him a break.

            I like OBAMA and I think that the argument will go on and on, so I will stop here leeberty hehe

    5. wilderness profile image99
      wildernessposted 7 years ago

      That's unfortunate, but not unexpected.  There are simply too many Americans profiting from the hordes of illegals to let it go by quietly.

      I do agree with prettydarkhorse, though, that this issue may well be a major factor in the next presidential (or other) elections.  Too many states are listening to their citizens and also beginning to take action just as Arizona has for it not to show up in elections.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Supreme court justices are not elected.  They will eventually make the decision, based on law not fear and ignorance.

        1. wilderness profile image99
          wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The elections I was referring to were not justices, but our elected politicians that continue to ignore the law they have sworn to uphold.

          To imply that supreme court justices base decisions on law is nonsense.  If that were the criteria used then partisan politics would not be a factor in their appointments.  Instead they make most decisions based on their own politics and beliefs.  The decisions may be spun this way and that, but almost inevitably seem to go along party lines; amazing that their legal interpretations always somehow seem to agree with those party lines.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            So all supreme court decisions in essence are nonsensical.  You may want to move.

            1. wilderness profile image99
              wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              You need to read a bit more carefully, Ron.  "To imply that supreme court justices base decisions on law is nonsense" was the statement.  The implication that supreme court decisions are based on law is what is nonsense, and it is.  The decisions themselves are not nonsense (though very often wrong) as they affect millions of lives.

              And if decisions are based on law why are the vast majority of them written and declared straight along political and philosophical affiliations?  You can almost guarantee how each justice will vote based solely on their philosophy and politics before any evidence or argument is ever presented.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                So a 7-2 vote equates to 7 justices having the same political bias?

                That makes even less sense than your last post.

    6. Flightkeeper profile image73
      Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

      I thought those four weren't such a big deal.  I am glad that the state can now sue the city of Phoenix for being a sanctuary city and any other towns that decide to go that way and go after employees.  These two together can pretty much discourage a lot illegal aliens from becoming economically viable and ultimately make them return to their home lands.  I hope the state of Arizona focuses on raiding the workplaces that thwart our immigration law.

    7. TMMason profile image68
      TMMasonposted 7 years ago

      Yup.

      We need to sue the sanctuary cities out of existence and then move from there.

      And as you said to begin with, Lee... this isn't a final ruling. The judge is still researching the matter and will rule at some point.

      Doesn't matter, in 2012 "real" change will be taking place.

      I cannot wait. First Nov... then 2012.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Hmmmmmmm, I heard nearly those exact words on Beck last night.



        Hmmmmmmmmm

      2. Flightkeeper profile image73
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        It will be interesting what the ruling will be.  Since Arizona basically takes from the federal immigration laws, is she saying that states have no rights when it comes to immigration law?  Or should one change the federal laws? It's gonna be an interesting can of worms that she'll open up.  I'm looking forward to it big_smile

    8. spiderpam profile image71
      spiderpamposted 7 years ago

      .Unless you live here in Arizona you cannot understand how badly we need this law which basically mirrors what's already on the books.

      Here's a simple breakdown:

      JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL
      > You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal".
      > Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California .
      > Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes
      > $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
      > Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, And
      > gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
      > Ready? Now pay attention....
      > Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 Per
      > year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has
      > $31,231.00.
      > Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00
      > per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
      > Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for His
      > family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now Has
      > $24,031.00.
      > Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and
      > Local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has
      > $31,200.00.
      > Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or
      > Welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per Year.
      > Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
      > Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps And
      > welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
      > Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe
      > Legal now has $9,631.00.
      > Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal
      > pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal Still
      > has $ 31,200.00.
      > Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal Now
      > has $7,231.00.
      > Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has
      > $31,200..00.
      > Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, Etc.
      > Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, Gasoline,
      > and what he sends out of the country every month.
      > Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after
      > Work.
      > Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
      > Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe
      > Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get A
      > government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after School ESL
      > program. Joe Legal's children go home.
      > Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, But
      > Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
      > Jose with his free tax payer entitlements makes $65,000.00 a year!
      > What a slap in the face to Joe and the American people! Do you get it, now?
      > If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal Aliens...
      > You are part of the problem!
      > It's way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!

      1. wildorangeflower profile image67
        wildorangeflowerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        The problem is not with Joe illegal then but those owners of businesses which are condoning these acts because they profit from it?

        are the owners of businesses Americans?

        1. spiderpam profile image71
          spiderpamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          True, They are BOTH wrong! What's your point here. The question is did they break the law or not?

          If you Cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labor.
          If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely.
          If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.
          If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally you will be jailed.
          If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from again.
          If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed.
          If you cross the Mexican border illegally you will be jailed for two years.
          If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into political prison to rot.

          If you cross the United States border illegally you get:
          1 - A job
          2 - A driver's license
          3 - A Social Security card
          4 - Welfare
          5 - Food stamps
          6 - Credit cards
          7 - Subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house
          8 - Free education
          9 - Free health care
          10 - A lobbyist in Washington
          11 - Billions of dollars in public documents printed in your language
          12 - Millions of servicemen and women who are willing to – and do – die for your right to the ways and means of our constitution
          13 - And the right to carry the flag of your country - the one you walked out on – while you call America racist and protest that you don't get enough respect.

          And NO I do NOT want to move to one of these countries, nor do I expect to give this country back to the Indians. What I do expect is for the people who expect all these great things that America offers her citizens to come legally and adhere to the law of the land which doesn't include illegals demanding we ignore the fact that they break our laws every single day. I know dozens of people who came here and became citizens with pride. And they are the staunchest supporters of Arizona. Do you live in Arizona? I didn’t think so.

          1. wildorangeflower profile image67
            wildorangeflowerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            then why did you put all the comparisons if it is the law you are after, just jealous of their privileges which your fellow Americans gave them,

            Are they a nuisance to you? and then to other Americans they can be a source of income?

            1. spiderpam profile image71
              spiderpamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              You didn't answer my question: Are people who enter this country illegally breaking the law?

              "then why did you put all the comparisons if it is the law you are after, just jealous of their privileges which your fellow Americans gave them,"

              What?

              "Are they a nuisance to you? and then to other Americans they can be a source of income?"


              Nuisance is an understatement we you look at the extreme high crime(kidnapping, gang shooting, drunk driving) especially around here. Everyday on the news we hear about “drop” houses and border patrol being hurt, shot and killed for doing their job. Those who are banking on illegals should be fined the first time them then suspended then closed down and we are doing that here. Not to mention that many if not most illegals get hired by stealing a citizens ID. Is that the Big Bad American business fault too?

              1. wildorangeflower profile image67
                wildorangeflowerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                they are breaking the law Sir but then it is also a show of the lack of capability to enforce the law and guard the border. Both of them are at fault.

                I may want to add that migration -- More developed countries are always the recipients of international migration, be it legal or illegal.

                Even in the history of mankind, people always go to a place which they perceived is a more better place.
                It is a must that this government should have a comprehensive laws on the illegal migrants respecting that they have a right as human being too. (really don't know why it cant be done)

                1. Ohma profile image76
                  Ohmaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Nobody said they are not human they are human criminals and treating them as such is only fair, or do you think we should open up the prisons and set all the criminals free?

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    By that definition, you are also a criminal.  Should you be deported?

                    This particular right-wing mantra is the basis of much of the hatred toward the lettuce pickers and landscapers.

      2. Flightkeeper profile image73
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Spiderpam, I don't think illegals qualify food stamps and welfare.  I think when it comes to health care and schools, we should charge the home countries of those illegals for what they receive here; it's not allowed for public hospitals to deny care or for schools to turn away children in the community and who would?  Especially Mexico since they have been so uncooperative.

        1. ledefensetech profile image71
          ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          One of the big problems is that many of the parents are illegal, but their kids are US citizens.  That's how they backdoor their way onto welfare.  The LA Times article I posted sums up the problems.

          1. Flightkeeper profile image73
            Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, but I din't think the food allotment for 1 legal child is supposed to feed the whole family.  This is why I think we should do away with the automatic citizenship for kids who are born here from illegal parents.  The anchor babies make it possible for illegal aliens to stay here and not consider returning home.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              That would require a constitutional amendment.

              Sorry.

            2. ledefensetech profile image71
              ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Which is why I maintain that this whole immigration debate from the "Right and Left" is a red herring.  The fascists want cheap labor and the communists want to get a whole bunch of people dependent on them so they'll vote the "right" way. 

              Illegal immigrants are the communists....um Democrats dream come true.  Not only can you control them economically through welfare, you can cut them off from ever joining mainstream American society by pushing ideas like multiculturalism and not encouraging them to learn the language.  It's a ready made population of second class citizens.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Referring to Democrats as Communists invalidates your entire argument.  You should understand the meanings of these terms before carelessly throwing them around.

                Democrats are not Communists just because Rush or Glenn say so.

        2. spiderpam profile image71
          spiderpamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Yes they do, I've see it everyday, EVERYDAY! Add kids to the mix and illegals are treated better than citizens.

          1. Flightkeeper profile image73
            Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            It could be that your state gives supplementary benefits that the fed won't give them.  Ultimately it really is up to people to elect representatives that reflect their wishes.  You can only do so much with law enforcement, the other side is reducing benefits on the federal and state/local level to illegals.

      3. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I do live in Arizona, though at times like this it can be embarrassing to say so.  It reminds me of the MLK holiday fiasco.  We don't usually get things right the first time, but with a little help from friends outside of the state we eventually become more civilized despite our own efforts.

        Hispanics will continue to grow in population and influence in this country.  It would be wise for all of us to pay attention to our future overlords. smile

        1. Doug Hughes profile image58
          Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          "Crime rates in Arizona at lowest point in decades. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the violent crime rate in Arizona was lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008 -- the most recent year from which data are available -- than any year since 1983. The property crime rate in Arizona was lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008 than any year since 1968. In addition, in Arizona, the violent crime rate dropped from 577.9 per 100,000 population in 1998 to 447 per 100,000 population in 2008; the property crime rate dropped from 5,997 to 4,291 during the same period. During the same decade, Arizona's undocumented immigrant population grew rapidly. The Arizona Republic reported: "Between January 2000 and January 2008, Arizona's undocumented population grew 70 percent, according to the DHS [Department of Homeland Security] report. Nationally, it grew 37 percent."

          Crime rates have dropped during past decade in other border states. The BJS data further show that violent crime rates and property crime rates in California, New Mexico, and Texas dropped from 1998 through 2008 -- the most recent year from which data are available."

          mediamatters.org

          1. spiderpam profile image71
            spiderpamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Google:

            The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration

            Facts, Figures And Statistics On Illegal Immigration

    9. IntimatEvolution profile image70
      IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago

      "None of this is very surprising," said Kevin R. Johnson, an immigration expert and the law school dean at University of California at Davis. "This is all very much within the constitutional mainstream."

      I honestly do not know much about the new AZ immigration law. However, what was deeply troubling me on the parts that I did know, was that it seemed unconstitutional.  Like forcing illegals and American citizens with Latino heritage, to carry "their papers" everywhere they went.  What scared me the most is that hot headed politicians tried to enforce their own personal racism, and legalize hate.  And what papers are Americans suppose to have carry everywhere?  I don't carry "papers."  But I am white in America.  If the American Latinos are forced to have papers, who is next the Irish? 

      Folks we just cannot go around doing that.  Is there a problem?  Well apparently there is, but, just because someone is Latino does not mean they're illegal.  We have many hard working Latino immigrants living in the USA.  They have taken their citizenship courses and have fought hard to be an American.  We have soldiers fighting on the fronts of our enemy lines, who happen to be Latino's.  It would be a tragedy to make an American serviceman or US veteran of war, carry papers around pronouncing their citizenship. I am shocked that so many people were behind this bill. 

      The legal language in the bill, was as scripted as one of Hitler's speeches, and as organized as those of Roosevelt's, when he locked up all the Japanese.  Furthermore, this bill was as elegantly written as Andrew Jackson's "Indian Removal Act" of 1830. 

      People, have we not learned anything from the mistakes of the past?

      1. wilderness profile image99
        wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Yes.  We have learned.  You indicate that you don't know much about the law, and that is evident.  It very specifically addresses your objections concerning race as does the special training given police.  No one is forced to carry "papers", not even illegal aliens.  Although it is a rare citizen that doesn't have any - never drive a car?  Never cash a check?  Never use a credit card?  Even my 90 year old mother carries a state ID.

        Yes, it will be primarily hispanic aliens that caught in Arizona or that are asked to prove citizenship.  How many whites (or yellow or red or black or whatever) can be found dressed in 4 layers of clothing on a 100 degree day soliciting illegal work from a street corner known to be habituated by illegals aliens?  In Arizona?  (That's from the police training course on the new law as possible indications of illegality)  That doesn't mean it's racist - it means that in Arizona most illegal aliens are hispanic.  A simple fact there.

        1. IntimatEvolution profile image70
          IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Taken from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_ … mmigration

          In her temporary injunction, Bolton delayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers.

          The judge also blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants for crimes that can lead to deportation.

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

          __________________________Maybe YOU should educate yourself more.

    10. ledefensetech profile image71
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

      You said that you don't know much about the law, yet you claim that Latinos, citizens or not will have to carry papers.  I'd make sure to read the law if I were you.  Especially when someone like Bob Schieffer steps on his crank on his Sunday show where he claims that the law will require people to carry papers like this was the Soviet Union.  Which, by the by, is why you might have heard the stuff about people carrying papers. 



      Key here is lawful contact.  A cop just can't stop you because you look Hispanic. 





      Note especially the last part.  If someone produces a valid Arizona (and presumably any other state issued drivers license) they are assumed to be here legally.  No papers required.  The Good Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution will expand the valid driver's license to cover other states' issued licenses as well; so no, citizens will not have to produce papers.  At least not any more papers than they do now.

      http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini … 36104.html

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image70
        IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        It is so funny that you said that, because I read the judge's ruling instead.  Maybe you should read the bill instead of lecturing me on why I am suppose to hate.

        I refuse to hate, furthermore I refuse to give YOU a platform to spread your hateful ideas. 
        Therefore, let us do agree to disagree.

        1. ledefensetech profile image71
          ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          How is anything I said hateful?  Which is really funny because I'm of Hispanic descent.  My mother's family is from Orizaba, Mexico; although most of us live in Mexico City now.

    11. TMMason profile image68
      TMMasonposted 7 years ago

      There is nothing hateful about the bill.

      That is just the ruse the leant Left and Progressives throw around so as not to have to discuss the facts.

      It is their MO... call us haters and racists so we have to defend that instead of argue the merits.

      It is a sad and pathetic tactic...

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Aren't the "leant left" and the progressives the same people.

        You should post a glossary of the terms you so graciously contribute to the English language.

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Looks like a duck...

      3. Flightkeeper profile image73
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        And a very obvious one roll

        Every state should put something in place similar to Arizona's.  The illegals from Arizona really don't return, what they do is go to another state.  It's important that every state have something similar to Arizona  so that they have no choice but to return home.  We need to elect officials who are willing to put similar laws in place.  Since the Feds obviously won't do it, the states have to step in.

        1. wilderness profile image99
          wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Well said, Flightkeeper.  The feds won't do it, no.  The dems will lost votes if they take action and the republicans lose the financial support from the businesses making money from illegals.  hmm

          At the same time, though, we see a few states actually taking steps trying to stop the job loss and budget hemorrhage from the problem.  Small, perhaps, but a positive step.  smile

          Of course we the people will have to continue to pay the lawyers bills from misguided efforts to stop said job loss and hemorrhaging.  Just a fact of life, I guess. sad

          1. Flightkeeper profile image73
            Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            There will no doubt be fallout from enforcing laws just as there is fallout from enforcing other laws.  The illegals don't get exploited, we all pay higher costs on our lettuce, the government doesn't take in as much taxes etc. So what? Should we ignore laws altogether? Get rid of borders? Really, what's the point of having laws if you choose to ignore the ones you don't like.

        2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The feds in fact have been doing it.  FoxNews will never tell you this, but if you put some effort into reading various news sources, you stand a chance of learning some facts rather than parotting hyperbole.

    12. JON EWALL profile image70
      JON EWALLposted 7 years ago

      Illegal
      Just another perspective of the problem in Arizona.
      It's about right is right and wrong is wrong. It's about equal justice for all and not social justice for all.
      We the people should not have any tolerance for our government not enforcing the US immigration laws to the fullest extent of the law. A law without punishment or enforcement is worthless and meaningless.
      We are in a deep recession, many (14 million )of our citizens are out of work. So the question is, why are they still coming, risking death in the desert knowing that if caught they will be deported. Deportation and  incarceration of the unauthorized aliens are costing the taxpayers huge amounts of time and money.
      If one steals from someone, they break the law and are punished and go to jail. When you take from someone that which is not yours to have, you are stealing.
      The illegals in our country cost the American taxpayers $300 billion  a year in entitlement money, money that is intended for our poor citizens. That’s stealing from our poor and government taxpayers. When it’s costing the taxpayers $billions to guard the border to stop the unauthorized aliens from coming here ,that’s stealing from legal citizen taxpayers.
      Many of them are nice hard working people, wanting a better life. Poor unemployed people ( citizens ) also want a better life. It’s time, the vacation is over, time for our government to stop the charade , put legal American citizens first and put the violators in prison. Catch and Release does not WORK
      They marched in Phoenix waving Mexican flags and placards ‘’ we have rights’. Groups from California were brought in by the SEIU  and AFL-CIO  unions to march and protest against the laws of Arizona and the country.
      President Barak Obama, AG Holder, and Congress are aiding and abetting breaking of our immigration laws by not enforcing them and by giving aliens the hope of citizenship and amnesty.
      Washington and our government are corrupt, we the people need to demand  that each and everyone of our elected officials  fulfill the oath of the office that they took when they accepted the office given to them by the people. Enough is enough!.

     
    working