Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 76
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?Page 4 of 23    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
And what of it? Driving with a burned-out tail light wouldn't warrant my arrest on its own, either. But it would give an officer the reasonable suspicion he needed to stop me.

No, not "reasonable suspicion", but "probable cause" and, in this case, specific cause... A burnt taillight is grounds to issue a citation for what is, generically, a "summary offense" (those are ticketable offenses, like noise violations or burnt taillights, where you are given a citation and can either plead guilty by paying it or challenge it before a judge but usually not a jury)...

And I wouldn't be under arrest while the officer was just questioning me.

No, but you are 'detained' or 'seized'... You are NOT free to terminate the encounter at will, attempting to do so will land you in the hoosegow... But refusing to answer questions UNRELATED TO THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE is NOT, ITSELF, probable cause to arrest (when arresting you he cannot arrest specifically for "refusing to answer my questions")...

THIS law, however, DOES allow officers to arrest on a basis UNRELATED TO THE ACTUAL OFFENSE UNDER INVESTIGATION or AN OFFENSE LAWFULLY DISCOVERED in the course of investigation... Under THIS law, you can be arrested for refusing to provide proof of legal status ON TOP, OR AS A SUBSTITUTE, OF the offense in question or an OFFENSE LAWFULLY DISCOVERED... Under THIS law, you can be arrested for being "unlawfully present" when no objectively observable evidence to that effect exists...

I'm not sure what, specifically, you're claiming the Arizona statute does that violates the U.S. Constitution.

The 4th... SCOTUS has clearly ruled that refusal to answer questions does not constitute "probable cause" under the 4th Amendment... The law violates that principle in that officers are allowed to arrest you merely for refusing to answer their demand to provide proof of legal status independant of the outcome of their investigation into any other offense suspected... If they are 'detaining' you while investigating a break and enter, they MAY arrest you for THAT offense, IF there is probable cause, but the 4th and SCOTUS rulings do not allow them to claim probable cause simply for refusing to answer questions, the probable cause must be separate from your refusal to answer... And a more important example covered under this law, you generally could NOT be arrested for breaching a by-law governing 'lawn maintenance', but with this law, you COULD be arrested for refusing to prove legal status even though such status would generally NOT be routinely or reasonably observable in the course of investigation of such an offense, in short, they could claim, under this law, probable cause based solely on your refusal to answer, a violation of the 4th...
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 77
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 3:24:37 PM

I would just like to hear you cast some blame and responsibility to those who have actually created this situation


The reason they don't do that is because what they really want is for anyone they happen to sympathize with to have the right to violate U.S. immigration laws. I can't imagine a more basic duty of any government than to protect the borders and the sovereignty of the country it represents. That's obviously fundamental to defending any nation. People who think citizens of other countries have a right to challenge this country's control of its territory couldn't make their contempt for America any clearer.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 78
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 3:27:27 PM
What, specifically, are you claiming this statute does, as to race, that's unconstitutional? And what specific part of the U.S. are you claiming it violates? If this law's as obviously unconstitutional as you imply, that shouldn't be hard to answer.


I guess my response to your challenge didn't sit very well with you.

As for the problem with the law requiring police officers to violate people's rights in the US under the penalty of lawsuits if they don't engage in the racial profiling and violation of constitutional rights required by the Arizona immigration law, please feel free to check previous posts in the other thread about this topic where I included the link to the actual text of the lawsuit against the governor of Arizona that officer Martin Escobar initiated.

To make it easier for you, check this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30718652/Arizona-immigration-lawsuit
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 79
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 3:55:20 PM
Like those in the southwest of the US, most European immigrants were illegal as they stole land from the indigenous inhabitants. I now live in the region that the Cherokee removal, the Trail of Tears, took place in the 1830s. European illegal aliens had little remorse at the time for stealing prime lands here, as they did in the Mexican territory. To now try to take the moral high ground of "our country", after taking the lands of others ring hollow. The sovereignty of the first nations were not respected and most ended up in concentration camps/"reservations".
http://www.nwppc.org/history/indiantreaties.asp

As an example, the Irish that dominate this region and much of the US economy, came here as illegal immigrants. Many still do but fail to show up on the radar as O'bama and McCain were both of Irish descent.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-rodriguez8apr08,0,1081193.column
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EADUQWKoVek

The problem remains, as one American born, hispanic woman put it on NPR tonight, she was behind a cop, forgot her purse at home and envisioned months in jail. Protesters on MayDay today wore yellow armbands with the Star of David on them to recall a similar time in another increasingly fascist/racist nation.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 80
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 4:07:43 PM
Where does this statute authorize officers to arrest someone for failing to show they're not an alien unlawfully present in the U.S.? It purposely leaves it up to the feds to determine whether that's true. What you're ignoring its that officers can temporarily detain anyone if they have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. Your statement implying that "detained" and "seized" are the same thing is not correct. The term "seizures" in the 4th Amendment refers to things, not to the detention or arrest of a person.

The police can do more than just question someone when they have reasonable suspicion, without placing the person under arrest. A "stop and frisk" or "Terry stop" is a typical example of this. The fact you're not free to leave, by itself, does not mean you're under arrest. That only kicks in after the detention becomes more than temporary, although there is no fixed time limit after which a temporary detention becomes an arrest.

Incidentally, you're overstating a person's right to refuse to answer a question by police. Under some circumstances, the rules of evidence allow a person's failure to answer to be considered an admission of guilt.

You haven't made the case. You've made a lot of interesting speculations, but that's it. What you've completely ignored is that the failure of even an alien who's here legally to carry evidence of that is illegal by itself. The federal statute I cited that makes it illegal wouldn't mean a thing if there were no way to enforce it without violating the 4th Am. States can't be compelled to enforce federal laws. But at the same time, nothing in the Constitution prevents a state from making a law that requires state officials to enforce a federal law. And that's what the Arizona statute does.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 81
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 4:08:52 PM
just ONCE, I would just like to hear you cast some blame and responsibility to those who have actually created this situation........

You got it...

Illegal immigration is the fault of greedy, capitalist corporations, small business and agriculture who rely on the use of grossly underpaid illegal workers in order to maximize profit... Without them, there would be little to no benefit from illegal immigration...

Illegal immigration is also the fault of greedy, self-entitled Americans who think that they are entitled to what is arguably the leastest expensive 'food basket' in the developed world that requires corporations, small business and agriculture to rely on the use of grossly underpaid illegal workers to provide...

Drug gang issues related (tangentially) to illegal immigration is the fault of a puritanical, prohibitionist drug policy and a reliance by US gov't agencies upon foreign drug production/US drug smuggling to fund covert operations that create an underground criminal economic community which the drug gangs access by exploiting the illegal workers lured to the US by the 'perpetrators' listed in the two points above...

In short, the illegal immigration problems are the fault of just about everybody BUT the illegal immigrants...

The term "seizures" in the 4th Amendment refers to things

You are completely wrong on that point... seizure refers to both the person and his 'things'

Seize
Definition - Transitive Verb
1 : to put in possession of property or vest with the right of possession or succession
2 : to take possession or custody of (property) esp. by lawful authority <~ drugs as evidence>
compare foreclose repossess
3 : to detain (a person) in such circumstances as would lead a reasonable person to believe that he or she was not free to leave

http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/seize.html
Incidentally, you're overstating a person's right to refuse to answer a question by police.

No, I'm not... SCOTUS has CLEARLY ruled that refusal to answer questions DOES NOT, in itself, constitute "probable cause"...

The police can do more than just question someone when they have reasonable suspicion, without placing the person under arrest. A "stop and frisk" or "Terry stop" is a typical example of this.

Under certain specific conditions... such as ensuring the lack of weapons... But "Terry Stop" rules DO NOT cover refusal to answer questions...

The fact you're not free to leave, by itself, does not mean you're under arrest.

It DOES however, mean that you are 'detained' or 'seized'...
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 82
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 4:25:30 PM

another increasingly fascist/racist nation.


What irony. The very people who are doing the most to bring about what you lament so much are the statists who are pressing for an ever more powerful national government. The concepts of multiculturalism and political correctness you're clearly so fond of are an important part of that effort. Regarding people in terms of their racial identity is the stuff of the Third Reich, and yet it runs all through the articles you cite approvingly and your comments on them.

By running the traditions and culture of this country down while glorifying everyone else's, you hope to wear away everything our Constitution stands for, and by doing that pave the way for gradually installing a totalitarian system. Nothing could be more fundamentally un-American.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 83
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 5:30:16 PM

Where does this statute authorize officers to arrest someone for failing to show they're not an alien unlawfully present in the U.S.?

The statute makes it a State-level crime to be "unlawfully present"... It empowers officers to demand proof where they have suspicion that the person is unlawfully present... And it empowers the officers to take custody (that means 'arrest') and hand the person over to federal immigration authorities (even outside of Arizona jurisdiction, meaning they can 'dump' them in New Mexico or Nevada if they want)...

Now... You tell me what they are going to do if they ask for proof and someone refuses by stating "I'm an American citizen. I was born in this country"...

Will they simply say "OK, no harm, no foul, I was just asking" and go about other business, just in case the person actually is a natural born citizen...?

Or...

Will they arrest under suspicion of being "unlawfully present" and what will they use as their "probable cause" other than the refusal to provide proof...?

Or...

Will they arrest them for a "lawn maintenance" or other by-law violation for which arrest is not legislated (rather than hand-out the legislated citation and leave) and then turn them over to federal authorities under suspicion of being "unlawfully present"...?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 84
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 7:06:47 PM
"It begins at ground zero and ground zero is Mexico"

Actually, ground zero is the US. We decided long ago that we could not afford each other and demanded child and prison labor via Mal-Wart, cheap food via the backs of Latino labor, that our own children needed a college education to avoid real work, that saving 5% on anything was worth more than quality or community. We killed the unions, we spoiled the workforce, we accepted chemical food things over real food, we accepted poisoning people for cheapness, we accepted a lot in exchange for our fantasy world.

NAFTA was designed and accepted as a means to drive people off their lands for our cheap-azz crap and corporate control of peasant lands. We signed off on cheap-azz crap as a right. Now that the people from communities we trashed out are willing to move a thousand miles north to do work we are too lazy or unwilling to do, it is somehow their fault. Ground Zero is here. Look at your kids and their friggin spoiled azz ways, how they cannot show up more than two days in a row or call when they are hungover, how they make excuses up the wahzoo when they are not high on meth. I try to hire them. Went through over 50 of them in a couple of years and finally hired a kid in his 50s that still knew how to work. If you look at the trades in the US today, it is both graying on the anglo side, and browning on the replacement side. There are very few psychology majors willing to do blue collar work.

Mexico, Central America and other colonies are a symptom of our disease. We make these people and places scapegoats because we refuse to accept personal responsibility for the world we demand and created.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 85
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 8:19:20 PM
And it empowers the officers to take custody (that means 'arrest') and hand the person over to federal immigration authorities (even outside of Arizona jurisdiction, meaning they can 'dump' them in New Mexico or Nevada if they want)...


That doesn't seem very likely.


Now... You tell me what they are going to do if they ask for proof and someone refuses by stating "I'm an American citizen. I was born in this country"...


What if the person says "Soy Americano. Nacio aqui"? It's not unreasonable to expect state authority to enforce laws that effect the state. Oregon doesn't have the same issues. It's also not unreasonable to expect people to carry a card detailing their legal status. I have to carry my driver's license which I realize is different because I can't get kicked out of the country I live in because I don't have it on me. But I could have my car impounded if the cop is pissy. Or at the very least have to show up in court a few months down the road and prove I had it. I would assume any "legals" who get caught without would have the same opportunity before getting drug across the border to Nevada for some weird reason. Man that'd be weird. Legally working in Phoenix one day, handing out escort cards on the Strip the next. Truly only in America.

The feds have always had road blocks and check stops on the highways heading north from the border in AZ. They stop you, ask you where you're from and check you out thoroughly if you're not American. What's the diff? That should actually be worse because people are just driving, not doing anything otherwise illegal or suspicious...other than heading north from the border I mean.


NAFTA was designed and accepted as a means to drive people off their lands for our cheap-azz crap and corporate control of peasant lands.


That's way too simplistic. Not saying you're wrong, but there's way more to it than that. Hardly any Canadians have been driven from their ancestral villages.


Mexico, Central America and other colonies are a symptom of our disease. We make these people and places scapegoats because we refuse to accept personal responsibility for the world we demand and created.


Okay. But I don't think you're entirely that important. Mexico has a long history of corruption on every political level and in every authoritative jurisdiction which absolutely contributes to its economic failings and the push to El Norte.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 86
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 9:09:41 PM

I guess my response to your challenge didn't sit very well with you.


When you say this law requires police to "violate people's rights" and requires "racial profiling" (whatever that may be) and violation of constitutional rights, you're only asserting the uninformed conclusion you've jumped to. That's not reasoning--and it is no response at all to my challenge to state specifically what constitutional guarantee you think this law violates, and how. You can't answer, so you refer me to someone's suit. You've revealed yourself as yet one more person who's made up his mind this issue on the basis of his own biases.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 87
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 9:33:29 PM

and the consumers are benefitting.


You must be kidding. It costs, on average, about $11,000 per year to educate each child of an illegal alien in California. It costs much more yet to give the several million illegal aliens in California subsidized medical care in emergency wards and police and fire services, to have them wearing out the public roads, sewers, and utilities, to pay for state and local welfare programs they use or defraud, to lose productive time and gains in air quality to the increased traffic congestion they cause, and so on.

Considering the fantastic cost of having aliens living here illegally, anyone's going to have to save a heck of a lot of money on buying lettuce or chicken or having his lawn mowed or house cleaned or kids watched to benefit from it. It's not even a close call.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 88
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 11:47:23 PM
The statute makes it a State-level crime to be "unlawfully present"


The state legislature has made a number of minor changes in the statute in response to various mischaracterizations. You're making one right here. This statute does NOT make that a crime.

"For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency," the statute requires that official or agency to make "a reasonable attempt . . . when practicable," to "determine the immigration status" of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States."

The legislature has added an explanatory note to the statute saying that the substitution of the phrase "lawful stop, detention or arrest" for "lawful contact" in an earlier version "stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

I hope you're not trying to say a state can't enforce a federal law if it chooses. States most certainly can, and do. The clear purpose of this statute is to enforce federal laws, including the one I cited and quoted--and which you have continued to ignore--8 U.S.C. sec. 1304 (e). This section requires every alien 18 or older to "at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession [a] certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card." Failure to comply is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, a jail term, or both.

The very first section of the Arizona statute, 11-1051 A., states that:

NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

First, the official or agency has to have stopped, detained, or arrested a person to enforce some *other* state or local law. Then, if a reasonable suspicion exists that a person's an alien who's unlawfully present in the U.S., the official or agency must make a reasonable attempt, if practicable, to determine the person's immigration status. (In practice, the drafters of this statute expect it would most often be used in vehicle stops.) If the person shows a valid driver's license or one of several other forms of ID, it creates a legal presumption he's here legally, which removes the reasonable suspicion that he's not.

If the person can't produce a license or some other acceptable ID, the official would probably call the nearest office of the appropriate federal agency. (Another federal statute requires the agency to furnish a state this information on request.) If the federal office couldn't verify the person's immigration status, that would create the probable cause to suspect a crime--namely the violation of the federal statute, sec. 1304 (e). *Only then* could the official or agency place the person under arrest, and if that happens, the statute authorizes transporting them to be taken into custody by the federal agency. That agency would then make the final determination whether the person was violating federal immigration laws.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 89
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 11:52:42 PM
That doesn't seem very likely.

That the section exists...? Or that they would use it...? I suspect that it was included in case the fed's balk at the bill and refuse to accept transfers at Arizona federal facilities... But that's just my guess...

What if the person says "Soy Americano. Nacio aqui"?

Seems perfectly reasonable, given that it is ARIZONA... Originally settled by the Spanish, then Mexican territory... Where Spanish is a "founding language"... And, actually, THE ORIGINAL European "founding language"... Do you think a natural born American citizen of original Spanish (or even Mexican) heritage from before Arizona was even US territory shouldn't have the right to answer in his family's traditional language...?

The feds have always had road blocks and check stops on the highways heading north from the border in AZ. They stop you, ask you where you're from and check you out thoroughly if you're not American. What's the diff?

Ask the Supreme Court... They're the ones that ruled that stops at known, fixed checkpoints on border highways were acceptable because people can choose whether or not to drive that route but that random, roving stops were a violation of the 4th amendment...


The statute makes it a State-level crime to be "unlawfully present"



The state legislature has made a number of minor changes in the statute in response to various mischaracterizations. You're making one right here. This statute does NOT make that a crime.

I am not making a mischaracterization there...

"For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency," the statute requires that official or agency to make "a reasonable attempt . . . when practicable," to "determine the immigration status" of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States."

The legislature has added an explanatory note to the statute saying that the substitution of the phrase "lawful stop, detention or arrest" for "lawful contact" in an earlier version "stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

I hope you're not trying to say a state can't enforce a federal law if it chooses. States most certainly can, and do. The clear purpose of this statute is to enforce federal laws, including the one I cited and quoted--and which you have continued to ignore--8 U.S.C. sec. 1304 (e). This section requires every alien 18 or older to "at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession [a] certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card." Failure to comply is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, a jail term, or both.

However, you are making one here and above... You are conveniently ignoring this part of the bill...

40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
S.B. 1070

And includes these penalties... IN ADDITION TO FEDERAL PENALTIES...

11 D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL
12 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE
13 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
14 1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.
15 2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE
16 PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.
17 E. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE ASSESSMENTS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D OF
18 THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE ASSESSMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
19 WHICH SHALL ESTABLISH A SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT FOR THE MONIES IN THE ACCOUNT
20 ESTABLISHED FOR THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT
21 MISSION APPROPRIATION. MONIES IN THE SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT ARE SUBJECT TO
22 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION
23 ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL
24 IMMIGRATION.
....
27 G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A
28 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
29 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN
30 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
....
38 2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:

That, my dear sir, is a STATE LAW that creates an offence of "being unlawfully present" (which is EXACTLY what "trespass" means)... And that means you can be arrested for suspicion of being "unlawfully present", in and of itself...
 fishiesfishies
Joined: 9/5/2009
Msg: 90
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/1/2010 11:57:01 PM
When a Gringo is arrested by your corrupted cops in Mexico, he is not only bribed but tossed into jail, and it can be just because he is a Gringo and the corrupted cops smell money......No where does a Gringo have a chance to plead racial profiling or corruption.....You must make it it your full time hobby to exploit every loophole that you can while hating your Gringo adopted land...
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 91
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/2/2010 12:40:32 AM

It begins at ground zero and ground zero is Mexico.


Mexico stands at 10th in the world for the largest gross national product.

Who's the richest man in the world? Bill Gates? Wrong, its Carlos Slim Helú, Mexican national.

So whats wrong with this picture? Why does Mexico rank so high, but has so many poor people?

Is it the greedy American businesses that rely on cheap labor?

My belief is Mexico's rich and also their corrupt government. If their government provides for their own people with good paying jobs, they would have no reason to go into the United States.

Charity begins at home, not across the border.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 93
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/2/2010 4:10:41 AM

And that means you can be arrested for suspicion of being "unlawfully present", in and of itself...


OK--we were talking about the first section, which is the heart of the statute, and you were talking about something in 13-1509, the secondary section that deals with trespassing. A little tricky of you, but I'll let that ride. It doesn't change anything, because it doesn't authorize what you claim--arresting someone on suspicion they're unlawfully present. Reasonable suspicion isn't enough to justify an arrest.

Officials can detain a person temporarily if they have a reasonable suspicion he's violating a law--here, by being an alien unlawfully present in the U.S. But to arrest him, they need probable cause to think he's violating a law--for example, the fact there's no record indicating he's lawfully in the U.S. Again, you're mixing up the two standards for detention, and that's what's making your conclusion incorrect. You think this law allows arrests to happen earlier in the process--and therefore before the official or agency has enough information to justify an arrest--than it really does.

Asking the person for a driver's license, passport, visa, etc. placing a quick call/e-mail, etc. to the authorized federal immigration agency if he can't document his right to be in the U.S., and making a final determination of his status all take place during the temporary detention. And the officials or agency need only a reasonable suspicion to start this detention.

This other part of the statute makes it the criminal trespassing for an alien to be in Arizona without the proof he's in the U.S. lawfully that the federal statute requires aliens 18 or older always to carry. Just as in the main part of the statute, the crime is being present in the U.S. without having the required documents. But here, there's an exemption, 13-1509 F. :

THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.

So if you have the documents authorizing you to remain in the U.S., 13-1509 doesn't even apply. In other words, U.S. citizens, resident aliens, and legal non-resident aliens (e.g. vacationers) are all exempt from this part of the statute; the only people who are not are aliens who are here unlawfully. As noted earlier, the Court's made clear the 4th Am. doesn't require officials to have any reasonable suspicion of a violation of law to question a person briefly, or to ask for identification. Of course, under those circumstances, the person's free to refuse.

Even though this part of the statute doesn't mention reasonable suspicion, it's pretty obvious officers experienced with routes used by traffickers in narcotics, in slaves and prostitutes, etc. know the areas these people frequent. Just seeing someone in one of those areas--particularly if the person looks or acts like an illegal alien, based on the official's training and experience with illegal aliens--would often create the reasonable suspicion a law was being violated. And that's all the official would need to detain the person temporarily on suspicion of trespassing. If the person shows he's here lawfully, there's no longer any reasonable suspicion of a trespass and therefore no reason to detain him any longer under this part of the statute.

But if the person can't produce any of the approved documents, the official or agency can call the federal immigration authorities to verify his immigration status as 8 U.S.C. 1373 (c) authorizes. The Arizona statute says either a federal official the government's authorized to determine immigration status, or the state official or agency communicating with the feds about a person's status, can make the final determination of that status. If it's determined that the person doesn't come within the exemption of 13-1509 F., that gives the official or agency probable cause to think he's violating 1304 (c), 1306 (a), or both. And that means they also have probable cause to think he's violating 13-1509 A. Only at that point could the official or agency arrest the person.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 94
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/2/2010 5:46:02 AM

Why can't industries that need labor just tell the gov't how many to let in? Gov't says how many get in till industries say they have enough. We also need to protect these workers from industry abuse (no unpaid overtime, proper compensation, safety conditions, and other standard labor protections).


I agree, but then the cheap labour becomes expensive again and we might as well just hire whiney Americans who want paid holidays and benefits and minimum wage and a maximum number of hours per weak before overtime kicks in and safety standards etc etc etc.


Seems perfectly reasonable, given that it is ARIZONA... Originally settled by the Spanish, then Mexican territory... Where Spanish is a "founding language"... And, actually, THE ORIGINAL European "founding language"... Do you think a natural born American citizen of original Spanish (or even Mexican) heritage from before Arizona was even US territory shouldn't have the right to answer in his family's traditional language...?


Sure. But would Spanish only be considered a reasonable suspicion of illegal status if combined with other evidence? Is it really that hard to pick out illegals 99% of the time? If nine guys sitting in the back of a pick up truck covered in strawberries all stood up and said "I'm American. I was born in this country" would the cop be more or less likely to pursue this law? I just think this type of profiling isn't uncommon across all areas of policing and might not be indicative of racial prejudices. Unfortunately we rely on cops to not be racists in a number of ways with a number of laws and in all states while still enforcing these laws. But given the blessed clarification of this law by matchlight....


But if the person can't produce any of the approved documents, the official or agency can call the federal immigration authorities to verify his immigration status as 8 U.S.C. 1373 (c) authorizes. The Arizona statute says either a federal official the government's authorized to determine immigration status, or the state official or agency communicating with the feds about a person's status, can make the final determination of that status. If it's determined that the person doesn't come within the exemption of 13-1509 F., that gives the official or agency probable cause to think he's violating 1304 (c), 1306 (a), or both. And that means they also have probable cause to think he's violating 13-1509 A. Only at that point could the official or agency arrest the person.


...there doesn't seem to be the malintent here that people are freaking out over.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 95
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/2/2010 7:20:42 AM

When you say this law requires police to "violate people's rights" and requires "racial profiling" (whatever that may be) and violation of constitutional rights, you're only asserting the uninformed conclusion you've jumped to. That's not reasoning--and it is no response at all to my challenge to state specifically what constitutional guarantee you think this law violates, and how. You can't answer, so you refer me to someone's suit. You've revealed yourself as yet one more person who's made up his mind this issue on the basis of his own biases.


I would like for people to be less convoluted when dealing with specific points.

Example:

Your original challenge was

I'm aware of how much the law professor who drafted the statute knows about the constitutional issues involved. If you think he got them wrong, prove it.


My response was

Yeah! He got it wrong, law professor or not! They already had to amend the new law that was legalizing racial profiling.


So, doesn't the fact that the Arizona legislature had to amend the initial law, specifically in regard to the issue of racial profiling which was denounced even by several prominent Republicans from other states, and was protested against by people from all around the country, prove that the initial law was blatantly legalizing racial profiling? What other proof do you need?

I don't have to re-type what has already been said by ither people who have much better information and knowledge than me about this issue. If a veteran Tucson police officer initiates a lawsuit against the governor because the law that she signed puts him in an untenable position because "there was no way to carry out the mandate of the Arizona law in a race-neutral way. He said the state statute compels law enforcement officials “to actively engage in racial profiling to detain, question, and require every Hispanic” to prove their legal status." Furthermore, he "filed a lawsuit arguing he'll be sued whether he enforces the law or not, either for violating civil rights or for refusing to enforce it."
I even gave you the link to the actual text of the lawsuit. I am sure that his lawyuer must know a thing or two about the law on those issues. Perhaps he/she is not as brilliant as your law professor who wrote the initial Arizona law, but hey, we already know that he/she was wrong because the amended law tries to be less blatant about racial profiling, and now requires a reason, other than racial for stopping, detain or arrest someone in connection with this law.

Have I made up my mind about this law? I tell you what, this law, and the law about eliminating ethnic studies that is on the Arizona governor's desk right now, plus the concerted effort to eliminate the teachers of Mexican, Hispanic, Latino ethnic background (with the excuse that their English pronunciation isn't perfect,) which is going on school districts all around in Arizona, don't give me much reason to feel like going to visit Arizona. I am afraid that if I go to Arizona and a racist cop stops me and harass me because I fit the profile: black hair, brown eyes and brown skin color, Spanish accent, I may end up having an unpleasant experience. When I became an American citizen, I swore allegiance and respect for the constitution of the United States of America because I understood that it would give me the same protections that all citizens have. Nobody told me that I would need to be always on guard against the die-hard racists who would always be searching for someone to hate.
 CallmeKen
Joined: 9/4/2009
Msg: 96
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/2/2010 9:09:22 AM

We also need to protect these workers from industry abuse (no unpaid overtime, proper compensation, safety conditions, and other standard labor protections).

I think you're missing the entire point of why illegals are hired in the first place. Clue: it isn't because they smell so April fresh.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 97
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/2/2010 10:10:14 AM

but hey, we already know that he/she was wrong because the amended law tries to be less blatant about racial profiling, and now requires a reason, other than racial for stopping, detain or arrest someone in connection with this law.


"We?" No, *I* don't know any such thing. Quite a few minor changes were made in response to attempts to mischaracterize the law (many of which I'm sure are being made in bad faith.) That doesn't in the least indicate that anyone had the bad intent you're claiming. It's actually a pretty smart play--draft the law as well as you can, wait to see what points people object to, and on what grounds, and then revise the law to neutralize those objections.

I don't know why any American citizen wouldn't want this country to protect its borders. You say you respect the Constitution. Well, that means respecting the laws Congress has enacted, including immigration laws. It also means respecting this country's sovereignty. Every country in the world has a basic right to defend its territory against aliens, from whatever other country, who challenge them. In many countries, people sneaking in across borders get shot, with no questions asked.

Unfortunately, your focus on racial bias seems to cloud your reasoning. No one needs to invoke that to explain the very firm approach the U.S. has always taken to matters involving alienage. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed many times that there's no single area of Congress' power to make laws that it defers to more than alienage. Because control of national borders and sovereignty is so fundamental to national security, the Court has always been very reluctant to second-guess Congress when it comes to dealing with aliens.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 98
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/2/2010 10:28:56 AM

there doesn't seem to be the malintent here that people are freaking out over.


I knew very well there wasn't. A fifth column has developed in this country that wants to destroy America as it's always been. If anything is good for this country's unity and spirit, you can be sure they'll fill the campuses, the courts, and the streets doing everything they can to fight it. Like the Nazi and Soviet propagandists, they couldn't care less whether something is true. In fact, the idea behind Goebbels' "Big Lie" is that people are more likely to believe a whopper than a subtle lie. All that counts to propagandists is getting as many people as possible to believe their phony claims. And there have been gullible and ignorant people since time began.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 99
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/2/2010 10:39:31 AM
"Unfortunately, your focus on racial bias seems to cloud your reasoning. "

Unfortunately reasoning is being clouded by those that focus on trying to nuance out the blatant racism that the Aryanzona Immigration Law, elimination of ethnic studies, and teachers with Spanish accents all happening at the same time in the same regressive state. You can nuance till everyone left is white in the face, but the reality remains that this has more to do with codified racial profiling of an entire race of people, using the excuse of immigration reform. Frank Rich as usual, sees through the whitewash.

The New York Times May 2, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/opinion/02rich.html

If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem

By Frank Rich

DON'T blame it all on Arizona. The Grand Canyon State simply happened
to be in the right place at the right time to tilt over to the dark
side. Its hysteria is but another symptom of a political virus that
can't be quarantined and whose cure is as yet unknown.

If many of Arizona's defenders and critics hold one belief in common,
it's that the new "show me your papers" law is sui generis: it's seen
as one angry border state's response to its outsized share of
America's illegal immigration crisis. But to label this development
"Arizona's folly" trivializes its import and reach. The more you
examine the law's provisions and proponents, the more you realize
that it's the latest and (so far) most vicious battle in a far
broader movement that is not just about illegal immigrants - and that
is steadily increasing its annexation of one of America's two major
political parties.

Arizonans, like all Americans, have every right to be furious about
Washington's protracted and bipartisan failure to address the
immigration stalemate. To be angry about illegal immigration is
hardly tantamount to being a bigot. But the Arizona law expressing
that anger is bigoted, and in a very particular way. The law
dovetails seamlessly with the national "Take Back America" crusade
that has attended the rise of Barack Obama and the accelerating
demographic shift our first African-American president represents.

The crowd that wants Latinos to show their papers if there's a
"reasonable suspicion" of illegality is often the same crowd still
demanding that the president produce a document proving his own
citizenship. Lest there be any doubt of that confluence, Rush
Limbaugh hammered the point home after Obama criticized Arizona's
action. "I can understand Obama being touchy on the subject of
producing your papers," he said. "Maybe he's afraid somebody's going
to ask him for his." Or, as Glenn Beck chimed in about the president
last week: "What has he said that sounds like American?"

To the "Take Back America" right, the illegitimate Obama is Illegal
Alien No. 1. It's no surprise that of the 35 members of the Arizona
House who voted for the immigration law (the entire Republican
caucus), 31 voted soon after for another new law that would require
all presidential candidates to produce birth certificates to qualify
for inclusion on the state's 2012 ballot. With the whole country now
watching Arizona, that "birther" bill was abruptly yanked Thursday.

The legislators who voted for both it and the immigration law were
exclusively Republicans, but what happened in the Arizona G.O.P. is
not staying in Arizona. Officials in at least 10 other states are now
teeing up their own new immigration legislation. They are doing so
even in un-Arizonan places like Ohio, Missouri, Maryland and
Nebraska, none of them on the Department of Homeland Security's 2009
list of the 10 states that contain three-quarters of America's
illegal immigrant population.

Outbreaks of nativist apoplexy are nothing new in American history.
The last derailed George W. Bush's apparently earnest effort to get a
bipartisan immigration compromise through the Senate in 2007. At the
time, the more egregious expressions of anti-immigrant rage -
including Arizona's self-appointed border-patrol militia, the
Minutemen - were stigmatized as a fringe by the White House and much
of the G.O.P. establishment. John McCain, though facing a tough fight
for the Republican presidential nomination, signed on to the Bush
reform effort despite being slimed by those in his party's base who
accused him of supporting "amnesty."

What a difference the Tea Party makes. This time McCain endorsed his
state's new immigration law as "a good tool" and "a very important
step forward," and propagandized in favor of it with his widely
ridiculed televised canard that illegal immigrants were
"intentionally causing accidents on the freeway." McCain, like other
mainstream conservative Republicans facing primaries this year, is
now fighting for his political life against a Tea Party-supported
radical. His opponent, the former congressman and radio shock jock J.
D. Hayworth, is an unabashed birther who frames the immigration
debate as an opportunity to "stand up for our culture," presumably
against all immigrants, legal and illegal alike. In this political
climate, he could well win.

McCain, like Arizona, shouldn't be singled out for censure: He is far
from alone in cowering before his party's extremists. Neither Mitch
McConnell, John Boehner nor Eric Cantor dared say a word against
Arizona's law. Mitt Romney, who was mocked during the 2008 campaign
for having employed undocumented Guatemalan immigrants as landscapers
on his Massachusetts estate, tried to deflect the issue by
vacillating (as usual). So did Mike Huckabee, who told The Dallas
Morning News last week that "it's not my place to agree or disagree"
with what happened in Arizona. If it's not the place of a talk-show
host and prospective presidential candidate to take a stand on an
issue of this moment, whose place is it? There are few profiles in
courage among the leaders in this G.O.P. - only a lot of guys hiding
under their desks.

The one group of Republicans that has been forthright in criticizing
the Arizona law is the Bush circle: Jeb Bush, the former speechwriter
Michael Gerson, the Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge, the
adviser Mark McKinnon and, with somewhat more equivocal language,
Karl Rove. McKinnon and Rove know well that Latino-bashing will
ultimately prove political suicide in a century when Hispanic
Americans are well on their way to becoming the largest minority in
the country and are already the swing voters in many critical states.

The Bushies, however, have no power and no juice in the new
conservative order. The former president is nearly as reviled in some
Tea Party circles as Obama is. Even conservatives as seemingly above
reproach as Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina now invite the
nastiest of blow-back if they fail Tea Party purity tests. When
Graham had the gall to work with Chuck Schumer of New York on an
immigration reform bill, the hard-line Americans for Legal
Immigration punished him by spreading rumors about his private life
as loudly as possible. Graham has been backing away from supporting
the immigration bill ever since.

It's harder and harder to cling to the conventional wisdom that the
Tea Party is merely an element in the G.O.P., not the party's
controlling force - the tail that's wagging the snarling dog. It's
also hard to maintain that the Tea Party's nuttier elements are
merely a fringe of a fringe. The first national Tea Party convention,
in Nashville in February, chose as its kickoff speaker the former
presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, a notorious nativist who surely
was enlisted precisely because he runs around saying things like he
has "no idea where Obama was born." The Times/CBS poll of the Tea
Party movement found that only 41 percent of its supporters believe
that the president was born in the United States.

The angry right and its apologists also keep insisting that race has
nothing to do with their political passions. Thus Sarah Palin
explained that it's Obama and the "lamestream media" that are
responsible for "perpetuating this myth that racial profiling is a
part" of Arizona's law. So how does that profiling work without race
or ethnicity, exactly? Brian Bilbray, a Republican Congressman from
California and another supporter of the law, rode to the rescue by
suggesting "they will look at the kind of dress you wear." Wise
Latinas better start shopping at Talbots!

In this Alice in Wonderland inversion of reality, it's politically
incorrect to entertain a reasonable suspicion that race may be at
least a factor in what drives an action like the Arizona immigration
law. Any racism in America, it turns out, is directed at whites. Beck
called Obama a "racist." Newt Gingrich called Sonia Sotomayor a
"Latina woman racist." When Obama put up a routine YouTube video
calling for the Democratic base to mobilize last week - which he
defined as "young people, African-Americans, Latinos and women" - the
Republican National Committee attacked him for playing the race card.
Presumably the best defense is a good offense when you're a party
boasting an all-white membership in both the House and the Senate and
represented by governors who omit slavery from their proclamations of
Confederate History Month.

In a development that can only be described as startling, the
G.O.P.'s one visible black leader, the party chairman Michael Steele,
went off message when appearing at DePaul University on April 20. He
conceded that African-Americans "really don't have a reason" to vote
Republican, citing his party's pursuit of a race-baiting "Southern
strategy" since the Nixon-Agnew era. For this he was attacked by
conservatives who denied there had ever been such a strategy. That
bit of historical revisionism would require erasing, for starters,
Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, not to mention the Willie Horton
campaign that helped to propel Bush 41 into the White House in 1988.

The rage of 2010 is far more incendiary than anything that went down
in 1988, and it will soon leap from illegal immigration to other
issues in other states. Boycott the Diamondbacks and Phoenix's
convention hotels if you want to punish Arizona, but don't for a
second believe that it will stop the fire next time.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 100
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/2/2010 11:01:44 AM

OK--we were talking about the first section, which is the heart of the statute, and you were talking about something in 13-1509, the secondary section that deals with trespassing. A little tricky of you, but I'll let that ride.


My, how "generous" of you to "let it ride"... No... not "tricky" of ME... The thread is not simply about the initial part of the bill... It is about THE bill... If there is any "trickiness" involved, it is in efforts to make it appear as though ONLY the first 3-4 sections of the bill are of any relelvance... That any other changes are "secondary" or somehow insignificant...

Officials can detain a person temporarily if they have a reasonable suspicion he's violating a law--here, by being an alien unlawfully present in the U.S.

OK... Let's just have a little look at this... As soon as you are handcuffed, locked in the back of the cruiser/wagon or taken to the station, you are UNDER ARREST... The officers do NOT have to state that you are under arrest, the loss of freedom of movement/determination is the operative element...

An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest

But to arrest him, they need probable cause to think he's violating a law--for example, the fact there's no record indicating he's lawfully in the U.S.
....
Asking the person for a driver's license, passport, visa, etc. placing a quick call/e-mail, etc. to the authorized federal immigration agency if he can't document his right to be in the U.S., and making a final determination of his status all take place during the temporary detention. And the officials or agency need only a reasonable suspicion to start this detention.

So... John Doe, who responds to questions about status with "I am an American citizen, I was born here" and refuses to produce further documentation of that, like a birth certificate (because he doesn't HAVE to)... What are your officer's going to do...?

They have no means at their immediate disposal to verify his "natural born" status... There is NO avenue for them to do this that doesn't involve detention of a length that exceeds the SCOTUS definition of "reasonable intrusion" (meaning it has now proceeded to a "full blown arrest" requiring Miranda rights and the full protections of ALL relevant amendments)... There is NO federal database of natural born citizens that is readily available to the patrol officer, the station OR federal immigration authorities to be able to verify natural born status within the bounds established by SCOTUS for a "temporary detention" that doesn't rise to the standard of the 4th... And, as a matter of course, the police would not even be able to obtain federal immigration information on non-natural born individuals in anything less than day(s)... There is NO centralized data-base accessible to the officers from their cruisers as there is with arrest records (And, again, we have now proceeded beyond the limits established by SCOTUS for distinguishing a "detention that is less than arrest" to a "full blown arrest")... In short, by the standards established by SCOTUS, it is virtually impossible to ascertain the natural born status of a natural born citizen without arresting them...

Are they going to...

1) Simply state "OK, no harm, no foul, I was just asking" and allow the person to go about their business with no further direct intrusion...

2) Treat his refusal to provide the proof as "probable cause" to arrest based on the contention that he is here illegally and therefore in violation of the "unlawfully present" section...

Oh wait... you just answered that with...

But if the person can't produce any of the approved documents, the official or agency can call the federal immigration authorities to verify his immigration status as 8 U.S.C. 1373 (c) authorizes. The Arizona statute says either a federal official the government's authorized to determine immigration status, or the state official or agency communicating with the feds about a person's status, can make the final determination of that status. If it's determined that the person doesn't come within the exemption of 13-1509 F., that gives the official or agency probable cause to think he's violating 1304 (c), 1306 (a), or both. And that means they also have probable cause to think he's violating 13-1509 A. Only at that point could the official or agency arrest the person.

In short, they can arrest a natural born American citizen for being illegal (or, technically, "unlawfully present") because they aren't carrying "their papers" even though there is NO requirement for them to do so... At least until now in Arizona...

This other part of the statute makes it the criminal trespassing for an alien to be in Arizona without the proof he's in the U.S. lawfully that the federal statute requires aliens 18 or older always to carry. Just as in the main part of the statute, the crime is being present in the U.S. without having the required documents. But here, there's an exemption, 13-1509 F. :

THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.

So if you have the documents authorizing you to remain in the U.S., 13-1509 doesn't even apply. In other words, U.S. citizens, resident aliens, and legal non-resident aliens (e.g. vacationers) are all exempt from this part of the statute; the only people who are not are aliens who are here unlawfully. As noted earlier, the Court's made clear the 4th Am. doesn't require officials to have any reasonable suspicion of a violation of law to question a person briefly, or to ask for identification. Of course, under those circumstances, the person's free to refuse.

Even though this part of the statute doesn't mention reasonable suspicion, it's pretty obvious officers experienced with routes used by traffickers in narcotics, in slaves and prostitutes, etc. know the areas these people frequent. Just seeing someone in one of those areas--particularly if the person looks or acts like an illegal alien, based on the official's training and experience with illegal aliens--would often create the reasonable suspicion a law was being violated. And that's all the official would need to detain the person temporarily on suspicion of trespassing. If the person shows he's here lawfully, there's no longer any reasonable suspicion of a trespass and therefore no reason to detain him any longer under this part of the statute.

This is a patently false mischaracterization... These elements only mean that a legal resident/natural born citizen can't be CONVICTED of the offense... NOTHING in this prevents them from being ARRESTED under its net and, in fact, it almost guarantees it for anyone who stands up to this "show us your papers" totalitarianism...

When people try to play little 'word games' with the law to make it SEEM as if this law ONLY effects the illegals and ONLY places a minor burden on legal immigrants, who must carry their documents, but DOESN'T intrude on the rights of citizens, who aren't required to carry their documents... to make it SEEM as if this law isn't an unreasonable intrusion on rights based largely on bigotry, racism and political intimidation... Is utterly disingenuous, utterly desperate and just plain deceitful...
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?