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

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

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

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

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

Marc,

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

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

Paul

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

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

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

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

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

Read the law this is an out right LIE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victor –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> WHICH IS THE FEDERAL LAW.

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

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

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

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

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

packetguy –

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did AZ legislators take that leap of faith anyway?

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

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

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

Victor –

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wait with bated breath!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

oh paul,

such good intentions…

such seriously misguided thought…

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

right to remain silent… miranda… remember her…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That happened to a group of my friends IN Arizona. They committed no offense. The car was in proper working order. My friend is a mechanic, a damn fine one I might add. They are always doing what they can to NOT get pulled over because they know they have a greater chance of BEING pulled over. FROM THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES! Always drive the speed limit. ALWAYS stop fully at stop signs. Never run a yellow light, let alone a red. Check the car light’s every day before leaving work. THIS IS HAPPENING! American citizens living in fear in their own country because of the mass amount of profiling and harassment that’s already taking place.
You can say all you want about the technicality of the law but the REALITY of what actually happens on the streets is a lot different than what you may have been exposed to or assume to be reality.
Are you a brown skinned man?
Have you ever been unlawfully pulled over by the POLICE?
Have you ever tried to file a grievance with the state to complain of on incident involving the authorities that supposedly protect us and been blown off?
Have you ever tried to go to the newspaper and tell them about a specific incident involving unlawful execution of local, state and federal law and never heard a word back?
These laws open further the right of law enforcement to openly harass anyone and detain them until they figure out who they are. How long would it take to be identified by ICE or a border patrol agent?? How long? I really want to know the answer to that question if you happen to know.
I’m giving you a real life example of what’s ALREADY wrong with the system. Something YOU may not necessarily see every day. Law Enforcement doesn’t always properly enforce the law. THAT is reality. And when authority is given more power, that power breeds more corruption.
This is just the beginning. Does the law stop here? What next?
Wake up and see what’s happening in the world outside of your computer box or your desk.

Well Bob, you can be as loud as often as you wish, it doesn’t make you any more accurate, any more logical, nor any more intelligible. Your snippy remarks about cites is rather ridiculous in that the more cites I try to add to my posts the more this site blocks my posting, so I gave up providing all sources, especially as they are easy to find. And while your ability to take data and argument out of context is nonpareil, such conduct does not promote rational discourse, so at the end of the day you are, in a sense, yelling at yourself about how foolish the rest of the world is. Good luck with that.

However, if I can get this site to accept one cite, here is an analysis of reversals of 9th Circuit cases as compared to other circuits.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200512150016 whatever Posner’s claims of a decade ago. As a member of the bar of that circuit, I can tell you that quite a few of the reversals we have seen are reversals of opinions by conservative judges appointed by Bush and that members of the Circuit attribute reversals to the size of the Court. In any case, when wonders why epople like you are not going apoplectic over Circuits that have had 100% of their cases reversed as opposed to the ~75% averaged by the 9th Circuit.

In any event, the Supreme Court in its last term had a chance to make a sweeping statement that would have signaled its intent to overturn Kolender, but it specifically chose NOT to do that in language that arguably confirmed the 9th Circuit’s position. When you are admitted to the 9th Circuit’s bar to argue the case please advise as I will fly in to watch the argument….. but then again, your comments suggest that you have an issue with lawyers- so maybe you would rather move to some country that does not have lawyers, as our lawyers are fundamental to our form of government, and, lest we forget, do their clients’ bidding.

You can castigate the rest of the world all you wish, but as noted by quite a few people who are members of the GOP, are employed in the justice system, and have read the legistaion and understand the implications thereof, this is not about politics, this is not about the “liberal” media (whatever myth you are mouthing about whatever that is) or about communists trying to take over your country (the GOP got its start supporting unions and all manner of “socialist” schemes, lol.)

This is bad legislation. Yes, there have been efforts to make it less bad, but for a myriad of reasons they fall short, leaving the statute a political statement largely by angry old white people. Does that make it racist? Maybe, maybe not, but it is bad legislation, whether it is racially motivated (I am guessing in part by some) and could be racially exploited (and yes, it could be abused for such purposes) or not.

And yes, the US does not have clean hands with respect to acquisition of lands southwest of the Louisiana Purchase. That does not make illegal immigration “right”, but it is cause for some amusement. If you can’t see the humor than you are truly myopic and maybe should emigrate to somewhere more to your liking. Your people are obviously not from this continent…….

As far as ER data, info from one ER does not translate to national treatment rates in Hospital Emergency Departments, though they may make for great headlines. Anyone who can’t find CDC or HCUP data really isn’t trying very hard.

Frankly, I am tempted to support a “purity” law that would require everyone in AZ to produce documentation of legal entry into this country or else be deported. Afterall, as I have have records of my family’s lawful entrance, what did is it to me if anyone else can’t – lol. My guess is that most of those squealing in AZ would be hard pressed to prove lawful entry into this country, “For ’tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own petard”

Every LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) is required upon reasonable suspicion of illegal activity to initiate a ‘Terry Stop’. Once the ‘Stop’ is initiated depending on any answers and observations of the seasoned LEO, the reasonable suspicion may lead to Probable cause, etc… Should that probable cause lead to an arrest wherein a person’s identity comes into question, every LEO is required to investigate that person to identify him/her. Besides being the LEO’s Duty, this is common sense. If it should be established that the person stopped may or may not be an undocumented alien, the person is taken into custody, and a request through either computer or via telephone is sent to Immigration and Customs Enfofcement who makes the determination as to the status of the alien. The alien is either relkeased with a court date or arrested for illegal entry if there is no record based on an existing Federal Law. A detainor is sent by immigration to the local LEO by the Federal Agency or ICE should the Alien need further investigation, or an ICE Agent is dispatched to the local LEO’s location. This goes on in every state in the United States. It is nothing new. Also the Embassy of the Illegal Alien is normally called and informed of the arrest, at least that is my agency’s policy. Again, every State does this, or is supposed to do this according to Federal Law. Arizona put it in writing, so what. If you think local LEO’s have time to go around and just stop people for no reason than wake up carry some id; should you get stopped, as I have on numerous occasions, show your ID which takes all of about 20 seconds and move on with your life. I somehow got placed on the TSA list and get stopped at the airport whenever I leave Mexico and enter the United States and I am an LEO. I’d rather be stopped and cleared than someone get by. It’s really not that big a deal. I’ve been stopped in Canada, Jamaica, etc… because of how I look, so what!! I am legal. I am a LEO. I welcome the thousands of immigrants from whatever country that enter our country legally. For those that do not, you should be stopped, and made to do it the correct way, or go back and wait your turn like my ancestors had to do.

Long time no hear. I commented back on page one two and three, that the AZ law was absolutely legal because it resembled the Federal law, but had less teeth. After hearing from an array of “know it all” pompous attorney’s gave lame reasons as to why it was not, I’m chiming back in with another LANDMARK UNANIMOUS 9-0 DECISION.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423 chomp on this Liberal ACLU wannabees.
What you guys should be up in arms about is the sanctuary city policies that are in direct conflict of Federal law.

The real social issue here is, instead of Obama siding with illegals or Muslims, what a great president would have done in both cases is take a higher road by asking legal immigrants to help us with this epidemic of 12 million illegals in our country, by either turning them in, or by gladly cooperating with police if you are being questioned about your own status. Also, stress that policies all over the U.S. will remind LEO’s to approach with extreme courteousness and a smile as well.
Same with Muslims in airports, if the president took the side of asking them as Americans to help the USA by showing tolerance when being questioned by police and guaranteeing the police will do the same. If both parties approach the situation with a smile, then e would avoid the conflicts that have been rising.

Tom and Fred,

You know that not a single government, no matter the political structure, has yet ventured to undertake a serious inquiry into the position of the working stiff. But what a number of investigations have been undertaken into crises — agricultural, financial, industrial, commercial, political!

The exploitation of the American taxpayer imposed through TARP and PPIP and other mammoth government spending sprees in this country have forced the US taxpayer to wonder about what an impartial and systematic investigation of governmental skullduggery might uncover. In the hope that maybe we can induce our republican government to organize a far reaching investigation into facts and crimes of our government’s exploitation, we are only promoting an inquiry of this kind with the few resources which are at our disposal. You can observe the support of all the legal working people in town and country, in North and South, who understand that they alone can describe with full knowledge the misfortunes from which they suffer and that only they, and not Washington elite, can energetically apply the healing remedies for the ills to which they are prey. We also rely upon people of all races, faiths, credences and political persuasions who, being wishful for the reforms so necessary in the circumstances, must demand an exact and positive knowledge of the conditions in which the the American working men and women — the people to whom the future belongs -work and move.

With this law a cop can stop a person and demand their papers.

Exactly the presentation and reality of submission of individuals to state suthority presented as the enemy of liberty when practiced by the U.S.S.R and fascist states.

“And don’t try and say that a warrant gives LEO the right to ASK to prove Citizenship.”

Thats exactly what it says.

Once a suspect is detained or arrested then LE has the authority to verify lawful status. Read a brief on that ruling from any reputable source and they all concur.

The problem here is your interpretation of the rulings. Americans have seen their 4th amendment rights slowly and constantly chipped away at under the pretext of fighting crime and terrorism. This new Arizona law created by right wing authoritarian legislatures is just another chip.

People who support this law are supporting the continued erosion of our 4th amendment rights under the pretext of fighting illegal immigration.

This is nothing new the easiest way to get people like them to surrender their constitutional rights is to scare them with the words “WAR” “Invasion” and “terrorism” and they hand over their constitutional rights without a fight.

They won’t be happy until the United States resembles a police state where the police are Judge, Jury and executioner and have the authority to stop and detain anyone without any cause whatsoever. Further more I have to wonder what the real motive in securing our borders is. Ask yourselves is it to keep people out or to prevent people from leaving.

I can see why no one here talks to you long. You don’t care to honestly debate a subject. All you care about is always be right. You’re acting like an adolescent in a pissing contest.

LOL Mark – calling me ignorant. You spent time fighting for this country, I believe you. Unfortunately you never learned to game plan of what it was you were fighting for. Thanks for your hard and sincere work, but you might want to understand what the nature of freedom actually is now that you have fought for it.

May I suggest that you start with the Magna Carta of 1215 (800th anniversary coming up very soon!), read through folks like John Locke, then papers like Common Sense, the Constitutional debates, the Federalist *and* anti-Federalist papers. Review and study scholarly discussions of all of those, instead of taking it completely on yourself understand.

Then you come back and tell me if you feel less ignorant of what you fought for after all that than you do now.

And when you are done with all that, please be sure to tell us where, in all that nation-foundation, it talks about the government of the US being able to specify ID rules on people, even citizens, on where the police and not the courts get to decide who stays in jail and who doesn’t, and all the other things I listed long ago.

My understanding is that the 800 year history, full of written documentation I only gave you a smidgen of just now, has completely the opposite train of thought – that government derives its power from the people, that people are citizens, not subject of the government.

And at the heart of it, that is what you fought for – to preserve that most fundamental part of the US – that the government derives its power from the people, not the other way around.

If you can find it otherwise in those fundamental documents, please do point them out to me. I will stake the chances of my ignorance against yours on the true nature of liberty any time.

So there you have it – put up or shut up, and thanks for the fighting even if you missed the point.

The whole point is, all these poster that read “enough is enough”(bye the opposing parties to this new/old law couldn’t be more closer to the truth. “Enough IS Enough”, your free ride is over..FINALLY! Stop trying to beat the system as you always have in the past by stealing identities and social securities numbers and do it the right/legal way!, we have had “ENOUGH”. O bide by OUR LAWS and we wont have to have this repetitive conversation.

@ Barry,

Since you have apparently adopted the role of the spelling and grammar police for this thread, you may start by revising your own fragmented sentence:

“Too many to allow him or her to rest comfortably knowing what we know that posters on this thread and elsewhere demand of people whose English is not perfect!”

Huh?

Afterwards, you can start by resisting personal attacks and remaining faithful to the debate at hand. Personal attacks do not contribute anything to the debate other than soliciting additional hate and discontent.

Even I, of humble origins, can see Swifty’s point and I can even resist directing a personal attack towards the poster.

Those who live in glass houses… well, you know the rest…

@ Swifty,

I agree. If immigrants were to abide by our laws, nobody will ever have had a need to force the Federal Government to enforce their own 24 year-old laws.

Peace.

@ Barry,

I said, in very plain English, “Probably just a typo…” since the “e” was missing as the very first letter. I did not go into a rant about his grammatical background, nor whether he spoke English properly. I was merely correcting an obvious typographical error. There is a difference between highlighting an obvious typo and personally attacking somebody because they never aced their English classes in school.

As far as your accusation that I am a racist,

quote: “To assuage your racist hate for Mexicans…”

where in the heck did that come from? Personal attacks will get you nowhere… Don’t put words into my mouth, Barry. I am not a racist. That seems to be the gut reaction from anyone who does not agree with either the current administration or this AZ law- opponents of either must therefore be racists. What a flawed pathway of logical thought and reasoning.

I have never said I hate Mexicans. I simply do not like ANYONE (no matter what country they are from) who breaks our laws and does not respect our borders, including Obama’s aunt, who somehow magically got a free pass rather than being shipped back home like any other Joe Blow would have been treated.

As far as your American Dream, you still have it, Barry, until our taxes go so ridiculously high in 2014 that you cannot afford a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas. You have it. I have it. Your neighbor has it. An 18 year-old computer whiz kid has it. Everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. The process, however, takes a lot of hard work, dedication, commitment, sacrifice, eating a lot of beans in order to pay the house payment, and even some smarts to pull it off.

I do not mind others coming here to partake in the American dream. That is what makes our country great. My wife did it over 40 years ago and now she is living the American Dream. The difference is that she did it legally…

Finally, anyone who is arrested, no matter in what state they are arrested, undergoes an identity verification process. This has been going on for decades, Barry, and you darn well know that. This is to ensure that the person arrested is not wanted in another country and has fled here to avoid a foreign trial. That has been Federal policy for as long as I can remember.

Federal policy… You get arrested in West Memphis, Arkansas- identity verification. You get arrested in Detroit, Michigan- identity verification. You get arrested in Nome, Alaska- identity verification.

It keeps the criminals who are dodging Interpol (or any other foreign LEO) from being harbored here if they have fingerprints on file overseas.

Finally, your American freedom is not 800 years old. Our country has only been in existence since 1788. The Constitution was created on September 17, 1787 and ratified 9 months later in the summer of 1788. The Magna Carta, to which you refer, applied to English subjects under the rule of King John, and it limited King John’s powers once he signed it. America wasn’t even a gleam in anyone’s eye at that point.

Several of the Magna Carta’s ideals influenced our Constitution, such as the 5th and 6th Amendments and Habeas corpus, but our forefathers did not use a verbatim replication of the text of the Magna Carta (probably because it was written in Latin). The Constitution, not the Magna Carta, is the law of our land.

@Bob –

Oh so now you just decided to use Logic and analysis? good for you! Now, add an open mind to that, and rebut my initial point that this law takes away the fundamental rights from ordinary citizens like you and me, in the cause of some vague protection form “immigrants” or terrorists as you call them now.

If that is the premise of your thought, fine, but it is not rational, it is emotional, and as a person with a newfound appreciation of logic, I am sure you appreciate it and see the irony.

Perhaps, if you want o explain rationally and persuade me why I should sacrifice my very real rights to further your very vague goals, you should make that case explicitly and as logically and as rationally as you can.

It will be a hoot, an utter failure of course, but it might succeed in an unexpected way – to demonstrate my point to you that your thinking is emotional and not rational. To the minor extent it has any basis in fact, it misapplies them, and moves out of the realm of fact quickly into the realm of conjecture. This you will learn by going through the exercise of trying to make a fully detailed logical analysis. Me on the other hand, I intuit it from experience based on your earlier words. After the exercise, your intuition will be more along the lines of mine.

So go ahead, by all means impress us with your application of logic to the removal of emotion and irrationality to your position.

> Nowhere in the law does it state that this law is targeted towards Mexicans

The effect in the public discussion has been about Mexicans. Do you doubt that? Or are you saying that the concern about “protecting our AZ border is about some other border than the Mexican one? Perhaps there is a problem with Australians, British, or Ghanians that the Arizonans are concerned about.

My concern, as oft stated, and to which you seem unable or unwilling to respond, is that the law targets US citizens’ long existing rights, and regardless of its effects on citizens of any other nations, that makes it legally, and morally wrong and untenable.

The only thing that matters to me in this debate is if you can persuade me why *I* should give up my rights, even if it is a minor erosion of them, to assuage yours (and others) existing xenophobia. Perhaps you can start by showing that your xenophobia CAN be assuaged. I kind of doubt that in the course of history, xenophobia, either in individuals, or in population at large, is ever assuaged.

But when government starts to enact erosions of rights of citizens in order to protect the citizens as a whole from some bogeyman of the day – and there is always some bogey man in every society – then it is very fair practical, not just philosophical question to ask why we have or need rights at all.

The AZ law, in eroding the rights of ordinary citizens, to allegedly protect against the bogey man of the day – be it Mexicans, terrorists, or whatever – only serves to set precedent that rights are not important, and that they will always be vulnerable whenever a vague assertion of a new bogeyman – or an old one that hasn’t disappeared yet despite the earlier erosion of rights, and that is a VERY slippery slope.

That is why I suggest very strongly that supporters of this law do not support the value of long existing rights, instead fearing the events of the day as though there haven’t always been similar events, and that those fundamental rights evolved in the face of, and maybe in fact because of, continuous threats of various and sundry bogeymen.

> I do detest, however, armed thugs, drug dealers, and terrorists who illegally come here

See, you build bogeyman as an altar on which to sacrifice my rights. Sacrificing my rights is the only solution you can think of to a problem you wildly overstate?

Really? What other solutions that protect my rights have you tried first? Have you exhausted all possibilities?

> Once again, the first premise in your logic is false, so I will throw out the rest of the paragraph.

I am sure you have friends and family members who are immigrants. Most of us do. You might as well say “some of my best friends are Jews”. What you fear is not the individuals that you know, it is the vague collection of the ones you don’t know. In fat, if you made the effort to get to know MORE foreigners, especially the ones you feel the need to legislate against and take your own rights away from in the process, the bogeyman will disappear and other solutions will present themselves.

> It’s not fear, Barry. It’s called “anger”. I lash out in anger that so many illegal immigrants are pouring over our porous borders and stealing clothes off of people’s clotheslines, killing their cows and pigs and chickens, stealing their cars, stealing their horses, burglarizing their schools, burglarizing their homes, threatening them at gunpoint, and killing some of them. (see links below)

Ah, so you take people’s rights away in anger at people from other countries. I get it now! But it is not racism!

As though there were not and are crimes of exactly the same sort in our country committed by citizens!

> I am opposed to illegal immigrants.

Then this law, which takes rights away from citizens and legal immigrants alike is the best solution you have? Make the logical case that all other options have been considered, and all possible ideas have been tried, and that our rights are only an illusion to be dumped because suddenly you have been whipped into an angry hysteria by the maddening crowds.

> Yes, I call them invaders. What word would you use to describe 20 million people crossing into Kuwait or 20 million people crossing into France without their government’s permission?

Words like nomads or refugees come to mind. But your mind is decided, isn’t it?

> You don’t think we have a border problem? Do you think we should just tear down the fences and open our borders to everyyone and turn our great country into another Somalia? Everyone there is free to to as they please without any governmental intervention. Maybe we could go there for a nice vacation sometime. Yeah, that’s a great place to live, eh?

Tell me what it is like to live in such a black and white world, where the only choices are to take away people’s long held fundamental rights to protect against a vague bogeyman, or no government at all? What is the difference between the two, by the way? Why are my rights negotiable just because you, the madding crowd, can not either imagine or implement a better solution?

> No, actually I am not OK with being called either one, since neither one describes me.

“Xenophobe” might not mean what you think it means.

> First, I am not a small thinker.

You have yet to show any expansive or insightful ability so far. I only have your words to go on.

All you seem to have is a defense, however mean spirited and weak, of an idea (the AZ law) that you did not think of yourself.

Maybe you are fairly trying to describe what you perceive as a proble,, and not simply echoing pst hoc what the advocates of the AZ law are putting out there for your consumption, but you are certainly not offering any alternative, large or small variations from the AZ law for consideration.

To you, it seems to me, that the AZ law, which takes away your rights and mine, which you haven’t disputed, is the ideal solution to the ideal description of the problem. Not really the ideal solution or description, the ONLY solution and description you can conceive. And that is what makes your writings betray you as small-minded – the inability to see other points of view, including the values of long held and cherished rights, the possibility for diplomatic solutions, and any of a zillion others that might result from a reframing of the problem as you describe it. Classic, textbook small mindedness my friend.

> I use my brain to the fullest because I know I will be dead a lot longer than I will be alive, so I want to use the time I have left to do something with my life and my mind.

That is an interesting statement at the end of an interesting string of sentences. I note it says nothing about your interactions with other people, only bragging about yourself. Yet the topic here is how we as a society deal with each other. I don’t see anything in your qualifications that you chose to provide that says you have any experience or sensitivity in those matters at all.

> We live in the greatest country on the planet, which is inhabited with millions of great Americans.

If you are sooooo-super smart —ooo mensa! – and so in love with Americans, then why can’t you or won’t you see the irrationality of your fear of bogeyman form other countries and your lack of appreciation of the values of our fundamental rights?

> I am in favor of Mexicans coming here for a better life. I have said that several times. I think it’s an awesome idea. I am actually in favor of immigrants from many parts of the world coming here. That’s what makes our country so great- diversity. I am assuming that you mean the “hundreds of millions before them” who entered the US legally. (Guess that shoots your whole xenophobe malarky down the tubes…)

You guess wrong. Again. There is clearly an economic disparity between MX and US. In the long run, that is not such a great thing. Both countries would be better off if our economic interests were better aligned.

Taking away rights from Americans in an effort keep individuals from pursuing what is only natural – a chance at a better economic future – is not a good idea.

Surely you and your mensa buddies can come up with some other approaches, right?

And speaking of things you can come up with, with the help of your mesa buddies, maybe you can look at American history and come up with times and places where people came to American, or became American citizens without the benefit of having come through Ellis Island, and with or without the sanction of any laws at the time….you should be able to come up with at least 5 examples, large examples, in just a minute or two.

> What about Robert’s rights, Barry? Or do you want to just tell his widow that it’s OK because we don’t want to make anyone politically upset? What about Robert’s rights?

You are crying about one murder, which might or might not have happened the way it is, and you would remove my rights because of it? Sorry, no.

There are plenty of murders, plenty of them pretty grisly, in our country everywhere, every year. I am sorry for the family in this case, as I am in every case.

However, I don’t see that this one is so special as to require me to hand over my fundamental rights.

Nor, if you are so super-mensa-smart, am I going to let you get away with the metaphorical and inflammatory usage of the term “invasion” or “invaders”. You are smart enough to know ti is metaphorical and inflammatory, meant to build up the fear of bogeymen we discussed above.

Take a deep breath, use your super-mensa-just-under-4.0-gpa brain and step back and analyze your rhetoric, your lack of consideration alternative solutions, or the lack of consideration of the extended implications of the proposed solution to a mis-framing of “the problem”.

Take a deep breath again, imagine what life is like when you don’t fear people, but seek to understand and work with their motivations, to envision a solution that would be best for all, to create a rising tide that floats all boats, if you will, instead of locking yourself and me in a fort built of isolationism with fewer and lesser rights, while the world goes on.

Take a 3rd deep breath now Bob, and start to imagine what tools we already have at our disposal, with the might of our government, the potential power of our collective will, of 350 million or so people.

What ways might you reframe the problem, and apply those tools to craft a solution Bob, instead of whining and yelling about one that was presented to you, all the while telling me how smart you are?

Yeah Bob, now that we know you are mensa material, or so you say, I am sure you can list all the alternatives, and explain why the AZ law is the best possible solution among all.

I still wait with bated breath!

@ Barry
“immigrants” or terrorists as you call them now.”

Actually, there are both illegal immigrants AND there are those who are those of the terrorist persuasion- from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Sudan, and more. If you had bothered to watch that video I posted a few weeks ago, you would have seen that Islamic terrorists (along with non-terrorists) are being released daily from Mexican prisons, learning English, and subsequently sneaking across our borders.

Since our Border Patrol’s own estimates state that they only catch about 10% of all illegal border crossers, that means that the 30 Afghanis who were captured left another 270 comrades who succeeded. Are you sure that those, along with the 60 Pakistanis (540 that made it) and other illegal invaders of a terrorist persuasion, are whom you want to allow to roam free in our country?

———–
Invaders- yes.
Armed drug cartel runners and armed coyotes have seized about 3,500 acres of US property in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in southern Arizona. That is on OUR side of the border. Well, it was formerly on OUR side of the border. Now they “own” it again. You can read about it here:
(remove the space after the http)
http ://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/arizona/buenosaires/PDFs/Closure.pdf

———–
“The effect in the public discussion has been about Mexicans. Do you doubt that?”

Actually, Barry, I do doubt that, and I have the facts to back me up. According to Homeland Security, only 62% were actually from Mexico. Sorry, Barry, but I guess that shoots your whole “Mexican” argument down the tubes….
Source:
(remove the space after the http)
http ://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf

Granted, the slim majority of these invaders are Mexican nationals, but the number isn’t even 2/3rds of the total number. It’s about the multiple nationalities who are breaking our laws by crossing the MEXICAN BORDER, since that is the only access point to our south. It’s not just Mexicans, it’s not about Mexico. My God! Don’t you get it? It’s multi-national and multi-racial…

In fact, why don’t you Google “MS-13” and take a look at those wonderful, youthful pillars of a peaceful society. Maybe you can have some of these folks over for a BBQ someday. Oh, and they’re NOT from Mexico, by the way. I guess that shoots you whole “Mexican-only” argument down the tubes (again). These fine young men would make for some really pleasant neighbors, don’t you think?

This is not an emotional argument. This is very factual, very real, and is happening right now.

Here are but just a few sources to see for yourself:
MS-13 Gang targets Minutemen
(Remove the space after the http)
http ://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/mar/28/20050328-125306-7868r/

Quoting the article:
“Members of a violent Central America-based gang have been sent to Arizona to target Minuteman Project volunteers.

About 40 percent of the 1.15 million foreign nationals caught last year by the U.S. Border Patrol trying to gain illegal entry to the United States were apprehended along a 260-mile stretch of the Arizona border here known as the Tucson sector.”

In other words, that’s “ground Zero” in the Border battle.

***
Yes, there’s even more wonderful news for you to tell your friends about, and it’s far outside of Arizona. Read on:

MS-13 Gang controls Washington DC streets
(Remove the space after the http)
http ://gangs.umd.edu/wfrmGangsinmdDetail.aspx?id=Mara%20Salvatrucha,%20or%20MS-13

Quoting the article:
“MS-13 is involved in the trafficking of illegal drugs and gains illicit funds in that capacity. They are also involved in armed robberies, grand theft (including auto theft), and chop shops that break down stolen cars for the sale of parts.”

———–
Barry, do you realize that the drug cartels and coyotes are currently using a terrorist tactic that was used against us in Iraq? Yes, coyotes and drug cartel runners are stringing piano wire across roads on OUR SIDE OF THE BORDER, and they are stringing it at the exact height of a Border Patrol agent’s neck while he is riding a 4-wheeler down OUR border roads. Decapitation is the expected outcome of their booby trap emplacement.

In Iraq, we were able to counter this very same terrorist measure by simply placing a metal bar at an angle that extended above the machine gun turret (where the height of the piano wire was usually strung). MS-13 are sure a bunch of nice folks, huh?

———–
“If you are sooooo-super smart— oooo…. MENSA”
I can almost hear your voice sounding like a 6th-grade bully taunting a kid on a grade-school playground.

Had you bothered to check our website, you would have discovered that MENSA does not get involved in political or social issues. Thus, I can’t “get my MENSA buddies together” to solve the inaction and complete failure of our Federal government to seal our borders and to protect our citizens from this invasion by armed gangsters and other victims of these human traffickers.

———–
“maybe you can look at American history and come up with ttimes and places where people came to American, or became American citizens without the benefit of having come through Ellis Island, and with or without the sanction of any laws at the time”

I am sure I could, but what is the point? We are not living in 1825 or 1905. The last time I checked, it is 2010. However, to satisfy yet another request from you…

Between 1850-60, we gained 8 million people, or a 35% increase of the existing 31 million citizens compared to the previous decade. From 1870-80, another 12 million emigrated. During the “Ellis Island Period” in 1910, however, the numbers jumped to 16 million, and that was with the new immigration laws that were enforced at Ellis Island- laws that checked for criminal backgrounds, diseases, and so forth. As I recall, these LEGAL immigrants had a strong desire to become Americans by learning our language, English, and wanted to contribute to society. This is a stark contrast to the illegal immigrants of today. Illegal immigrants are the polar opposite of the LEGAL immigrants who come here today and want to also learn our culture and language.
Numbers Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf

By contrast, the number of illegals we gain ANNUALLY is estimated to be 10.8 million. That is in one year, unlike the numbers I previously cited earlier which covered an entire decade.

———–
“a person with a newfound appreciation of logic”
Newfound? Sorry…. I’ve always been a logical thinker. It actually got stronger once I started writing computer code back in the mid 80’s. We musicians are also logical thinkers because we use the “lazy” side of our brains where logic and reasoning is thought to be located. You can take the test to see which side dominates your life:
(Remove the space after the http)
http://www.web-us.com/brain/LRBrain.html

———–
“imagine what life is like when you don’t fear people”
I don’t fear people. Barry. Rather, I do not want to put up with people, no matter who the hell they are or where the hell they are from, who show absolutely no respect for our laws. I like immigrants, as I said earlier. Immigrants are what made this country great. I do not like illegal immigrants, no matter where they are from or what darn color their skin is. That is irrelevant. You still cannot not make the distinction between the two, and I don’t think you ever will. I live in the most diverse city in the world, If I “feared” people as you keep alleging, I would not venture outside.

Instead, I travel over the road 10 or 11 hours every single day, dodging an average of 10-12 drunk drivers in the process. I see hundreds of people who have emigrated legally everyday in the truckstops I frequent. I do not fear these people, Barry. Just the opposite- I admire and respect them for their courage to do it the right way. I’ve even bought dinner for some just to hear their stories while we ate our meal. It is fascinating and refreshing to hear their stories! These folks are glad to be here and they also speak English. In fact, if you want to drive a commercial vehicle across state lines, then Federal law says:

“391.11(b)(2) “Can read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records;”
Source:
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?chunkKey=09016334800238ab

———–
“I note it says nothing about your interactions with other people, only bragging about yourself. Yet the topic here is how we as a society deal with each other. I don’t see anything in your qualifications that you chose to provide that says you have any experience or sensitivity in those matters at all.”

OK, Barry, here goes…

Barry, I am a person of humility, which, by my definition, means accomplishing great things without the expectation of recognition. Yes, the achievements and accomplishments that I previously mentioned were personal in nature. That is what you wanted to extract from me. I also do a great many things to benefit others, and not myself, to satisfy my humble roots. If, as you eloquently describe it, “the topic here is how we as a society deal with each other”, then read on:

Yes, I perform cummunity service that benefits others, but I do not like to broadcast it or brag about it. I have no need to. I don’t have to justify my personal achievements or choices to anyone. However, in this forum, I am constantly finding myself defending my personal choices in life and giving you more and more of my personal information because you keep attempting to extract this information from me when you doubt my credentials or question my intelligence. I did not really want to volunteer this information. Rather, I presented to you it because you apparently think I am not “worthy” of something on your agenda, or I have not accomplished anything. Frankly, I don’t care what you think. I just showed up here to (first) read the text of the law so I could be informed in discussions with others, and (subsequently) to make a couple of comments and debate this law with others using this forum. That’s all…

Since you seem to be obsessed with my “societal” achievements, here are a few that are “non-personal”. I hope you do not cite this as “bragging” as you lured me into doing the last time, and I also hope this finally appeases you:

(1) After my 21 year-old daughter died and I had completed my book (6 months later) which is targeted towards parents who are dealing with a child’s death, my family and I took the donations we received at her memorial service, along with donations we raised throughout the rest of that year, and donated it all in her name to Children’s Hospital. The first year, we donated nearly $10,000. We continued to raise money every year through family donations, paycheck savings, and local fund-raising events that we plan and execute. Every year since then, we have raised between $6,000 and $10,000. During the last week in November or the 1st week in December, we drive up and donate what we have collected. If I ever get that particular book published, the proceeds will, obviously, go into that fund. I did not do this for me. I do it for somebody else: our society’s kids and teens at Children’s Hospital.

(2) I tutor computer science students free of charge at our local technical college. I do not do this for me. I do it for others: our society’s Computer Science Students who need help from a Cisco and Microsoft-certified expert.

(3) I give free piano and guitar lessons to some of the kids and teenagers in my neighborhood. Statically, students who are involved in fine arts do better in school than other students. Thus, I do not do this for me. I do it for others</strong: our society's kids who have talent or want to enjoy a hobby.

(4) I am a member of AMVETS, Post 113 which not only helps other veterans in my community by acception property and/or monetary donations to sell at the AMVETS stores, but we also help out veteran's families and/or veteran's survivors. I do not do this for me. I do it for others: my fellow vets who have also served their country.

(5) I am a member of VFW Post 2805 for the same reasons listed in (4)

Since I do not really care to defend my personal choices to you, nor anyone else on this forum, I will not be making any more posts. I have spoken my peace, and, as of yesterday, the courts began hearing arguments in the Federal Government’s bogus case against Arizona. It is NOT about civil rights. The law specifically prohibits civil rights violations.

If the cop decides (on his own accord) to violate the Arizona law, tell me, Barry, is that really Arizona’s fault or Arizona’s intent? Or, as I contend, is it the OFFICER’S personal bad ethical decision? Answer: It is the officer’s personal responsibility for his personal ethical actions. It is the officer’s ethics should be investigated, and he, personally, should be held accountable if he violated the state law, not the state. The state’s intent is very clear and written in black and white, and that intent is to not violate anyone’s civil rights. Rogue cops who violate the Arizona law will be dealt with via the courts and will probably exposed in YouTube videos hence. A rogue cop’s bad personal decision will end his career. His momma should be slapped for not teaching him proper morals and ethics, but that’s just my own personal opinion…

I have read the Federal Government’s case, and, even though they complained on the news shows for weeks about how the AZ law would violate civil rights, they did not bother to put the civil rights issue into their complaint because they knew it would not stand up. Hypocrites… ( Yes… I have read Atty Gen’s Holder’s complaint, and I laughed aloud afterwards).

Actually, don’t you find it ironic that the Feds do not want to pursue “sanctuary cities” for harboring fugitives and law-breakers, yet the want to sue a state for passing a law that would have been unnecessary had the Federal Government been doing their job in the first place? This administration has to go. Period.

Good luck in your endeavours, Barry, and may you stay safe and be prosperous, despite the administration’s repeated attempts to take it all away from you and give it to some poor schlop who doesn’t want to earn it the old-fashioned way. Um, excuse me, I guess I should use the President’s own words. “We need to re-distribute some of the wealth around here”

I am looking forward to meeting even more legal immigrants during the course of my remaining years, and I am sure that a few of them that I may meet will become life-long friends who are happy that they emmigrated to the US to live the American dream and make a great life for themselves and their descendants. I have enjoyed the debate, but I must continue to devote most of my time to my studies over the next couple of weeks and finish my Final Projects for my classes.

Take care.
Bob

Hello everyone. I wonder if we all have heard the saying, “Don’t judge a man until you walk a mile in his shoes” (moccasins, loafers, whatever). I’m sure most of us have. This is very fitting in this case. While I agree that for some individuals an ID carried at all times could at one time or another be potentially problematic, it is highly unlikely that any law-abiding citizen would run into a problem. I think that people have this idea that the AZ cops are vigilantes on a mission. So untrue. My son is half Dominican. He could easily pass for someone of Mexican heritage. He also does not have a state ID, a state driver’s license. Only his school I.D. and pretty much walks wherever he wants to go, unless it is too hot. I asked him how he felt about this new law, since apparently the rest of the nation feels that someone that looks like my son would be a target for unnecessary harassment by law enforcement. He said he wasn’t worried about it in the least. I asked him his reasoning behind this and he said that if it were to ever happen, which was unlikely since he wasn’t planning on breaking the law, that it would be quite simple to prove his citizenship, even if it took a little while.

Living in Arizona he and the rest of us understand the dangers of illegal immigration. And it’s not about jobs. So here is my suggestion via moccasin sharing. Come to AZ. Yep, come on down. Visit the homesteads,ranches, etc. of those living close to the border. See the shotguns they have to keep by the doors and weapons they keep on themselves just to ensure they stay alive. Yep, stay alive. Oh, and do spend the night. But don’t expect to stay asleep. Because drug runners will be knocking on the door. They are just friendly that way. Besides, they were helping to relocate some “friends” and picking up so extra money doesn’t hurt. Why they run off when you open the door with a loaded shotgun is beyond me. Wish they would have stayed for breakfast. At least they were able to get water from the faucet outside for them and the other people with them. You get mighty thirsty when you have to walk such long distances through other people’s property since you don’t want anyone to see what you are up to. Well, the sun’s up now. And since you were so nice to come out and visit, you can go out and help them work their farms. It’ll be fun! But if you happen to find drugs stashed on the property good holy heck… do not turn them in! It’s important to live in fear. This keeps you alive. Heck, just look at ol’ Henry across the way. He found drugs and turned them in. Was shot in cold blood right on his own property. Guess that showed him. And as far as the people who are just coming to AZ for a better way of life… good luck to you. The desert is not your friend. Between the heat and the drug cartel, well, you’ll be lucky if you get to keep your head intact. Come to think of it… why do I live here anyway????

Ha! They are baaaack!

Echoing the lies the AZ Governor already was forced to admit to in her debate last week.

How sad.

You know it is all lies, right?

Heh! Victor is back with his anti-American rants.

Funny that he is not arguing the rightness of the law itself anymore, having lost that case in Court since the last time he posted here.

Instead, he treats us to a rant demanding that people not exercise their 1st Amendment Right to not speak, demanding that they speak in support of tyranny of a mob, which, while he may feel comfortable being part of,good Americans know that tyranny of the mob is exactly what our radical American system of government was designed to prevent.

Heh. Now you are relying on the SCOTUS to save you? did you predict a loss a tthe first level?

Your idea of justice for 400 million Americans is use obscenities regarding a bet with a random guy on the internet, and you want to be taken seriously?

How about if you address the substance of my previous post, explaining how your post prior to that is in the spirit of what we all learned is good about America in grade school? Especially all of the parts of the First Amendment?

You did know there was more than one part to the first amendment too?

Anyway, you are exactly the person that the guy who wrote the “First they came for …” poem regarding the Holocaust was both writing about and warning the world about.

So entertain us: How is your rant aligned with the principles of freedom of speech, of association, of religion, and so forth?

Be as detailed as you possibly can, provide links or other references to your sources, do your best to be persuasive instead of a dick hiding behind a keyboard.

Persuade me, an American, why it is the nature of our country that I should call the cops and tell them that there are 75 Muslims living in my neighborhood alone.

Have fun!

The previous post talks about being an American! In America, we were “taught” if we see someone breaking the law, or any type of injustice, you do something about it, or tell someone. Racism and the KKK were finally sent to the fringe of society when Evangelists condemned it in their sermons, when family members who were intertwined with kkk members or racists, stood up at the family gathering and told them, not use that language around them or their kids.

Illegal Immigrants are the same. Until legal immigrants who’s families are intertwined with illegal’s separate themselves from one another, until Legal Immigrants turn them in, or ostracize them from the community. Until businesses refuse to hire them, legal immigrants will be temporarily detained during everyday life. Until Legal immigrants come out and publicly condemned illegals, it will be guilt by association, and a type of aiding and abetting.