Arizona (Page 7)

LOL - I saw that on the news!  Dang coyotes...  wait is that a different type of coyote?

Brock -kudos to you, but you are being too rational - it is much more fun to get emotionally bent on the subject.  As I said earlier, there is really no difference in this law than what SHOULD be already happening....  Now if we just can get ICE to take the illegals...  (BTW - what happened to the border fence?  Oh, that's right - we stopped working on it...)  At the end of the day this is really about the liberal Democrats trying to insert identity politics into a simple law enforcement matter.

ashort33:  I believe my interpretation of the law is correct.  That being said I understand the posts of other people, especially given how the media is reporting the law. If media reports on the law were accurate (I assert they are not) then people SHOULD be outraged. 

One of the major problems we have is that we no longer have an independent press.  The majority of the press, either print media or electronic media, have a specific agenda and print stories (I purposfully do not say "report the news) to either advance a specific agenda or to sensationalize a story to sell more.  Additionally, our government, both parties, are beholden to interests other than the people.  Whether those interests are the advancement of their own party or the advancement of special interests.  Our government is now more about power and money than about the people.

For that reason we should be skeptical about everything that we read, and hear.  Rather than taking the presses word for what a law says, I believe we should go to the primary sources.  That means reading the law, or reading the court opinion.

Those in power count on an uninformed or at best an ill-informed electorate.  The most feared thing in Washington is a well informed citizenry.

Never thought about it but it may be right.  Especially when you add in the request for national guards to be used to patrol the borders.  You are forcing the Federal government to do something, even if that something is inaction and then defend their inaction.

Best post I've ever read, on BT or elsewhere. Thanks, very well stated.

Agreed!

Actually, I'm in Arizona and I support this.  The bill was written in such a way as to comply with the current federal regulations that are already on the books - most of which are not enforced.  I have chosen to stay out of this conversations, mostly because people will believe what they want to believe and not always look at the truths.  However, I highly doubt that anything will change due to this legislation.  You must have reasonable suspicion to ask - similar to many states seat belt laws - you had to commit a primary 'crime' in order to receive the 'secondary' punishment (i.e. speeding AND not wearing a seat belt).  In fact you can not be arrested on reasonable suspicion alone.  Once RS has been established, you can be asked about your citizenship - if you can not prove that whether it be by producing your green card (which is supposed to be carried anyway if I recall) or a DL/ID or a passport or by calling in background, then a cop *could* establish probable cause that you are here illegally and then arrest you. 

This law allows Arizona to make it a crime to be here illegally.  The key word is IL-legal.  As in, not legal.  If I go to any other country in the world, I am supposed to have some form of identification (preferably passport) on me at all times and I can be stopped and asked for it.  Yet, no one is sitting around comparing them to Nazi Germany and a papers please country.  This includes both countries where I blend in very well and those where I stick out like a sore thumb.

The solution may be elusive, and highly politically charged (when should be driven by...uh... say the laws of the land??)

But the problem is very real and threatening to all Americans regardless of race. @ 1/3 of the prisonors in federal jails are alliens who have commited a crime (other than illegal status). The costs are high (see reference below)...without quanitfying loss of life, liberty, property, or ability to pursue happiness of the victims.

I think the innocent and legal citizens deserve some consideration, and have the inallienable right to protect themselves…just saying…

I may be stating this strongly as I think of the local teenage girl who died at the hands of a drunk driver...illegally in this country...with multiple prior DUI's...who was not deported. In my opinion, illegal alliens who are criminals need to serve their time then "go"...if they come back...life term in a very cost-effective prison system. Not gonna find out if they come back without checking. Sorry but liberty of the many may just require a few innocents to show proof of legality. This is vastly supperior to looking the other way and allowing criminals to hurt the innocent. In my mind this is a huge stretch from ethic profiling/cleansing some are suggesting this law represents. The problem warrents the inforcement of existing laws...which is how I interpret this legislation. If it is abused, then by all means trash the abuser(and I suspect there will be plenty of ACLU types lining up to do just that)...but don't toss out the rights of the legal innocent citizen in our zeal to be politically corrrect and "fair" to "all"...

_{+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++}

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), in an Apr. 7, 2005 report to Congress entitled "Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails," informed:

"When the United States incarcerates criminal aliens--noncitizens convicted of crimes while in this country legally or illegally--in federal and state prisons and local jails, the federal government bears much of the costs. It pays to incarcerate criminal aliens in federal prisons and reimburses state and local governments for a portion of their costs of incarcerating some, but not all, criminal aliens illegally in the country through the Department of Justice's State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) managed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). Some state and local governments have expressed concerns about the impact that criminal aliens have on already overcrowded prisons and jails and that the federal government reimburses them for only a portion of their costs of incarcerating criminal aliens.

[...] At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004--a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years--about 27 percent. The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico. We estimate the federal cost of incarcerating criminal aliens--Bureau of Prisons (BOP)'s cost to incarcerate criminals and reimbursements to state and local governments under SCAAP--totaled approximately $5.8 billion for calendar years 2001 through 2004."

I want to clarify something.  This whole debate about if the cops can stop you for suspicion of being an illegal alien or do they have to stop you for something else first and then, and only then, can they inquire about your status is entirely academic.  In the real world you cannot travel any distance in a car without somehow breaking a law.  There are simply too many laws to comply with all of them.  Think about it, speeding, failure to yield, reckless driving, suspicion of DUI, failure to maintain your lane, failure to signal properly (did you signal the required number of feet before you turned or changed lanes), equipment failure on your car (are your windows tinted too much, are your lights working), failure to look before merging and the list goes on.  If a cop wanted to pull you over they could.  Most of the time they look for meaningful things to stop you for, but if they want to stop you, they can find something to pull you over for that would serve to justify checking your status.  So to say everything is alright because all you have to do is follow the laws and there will be no lawful contact is deluding yourself.  This law allows regular cops to pull people over for being dark skinned.  Now maybe no one else minds that cops could pull people over for the color of their skin, but I mind.  Even if they can easily prove that they are legally allowed to be in the country, it is still a waste of their time and even on that basis alone it's not fair.  I don't want to worry about being pulled over three times between the house and the grocery store because I get dark tans because I workout outdoors all summer.

Except for the part in the new law that reiterates that profiling is against the law...

Exactly!! I think they should alow the cops to drive down the streets and ask anyone they see for their papers or liscense.  If you are here legally then you should have nothing to worry about.  Here in Oklahoma they set up road blocks all the time that they make you stop and show your license and insurance.  This is for drunk driver reason as well as making sure everyone is DRIVING legally (proof of insurance).  We have had a rash of people killed in car crashes by illegal aliens who don't have a license or insurance.  Obviously because they are illegal.  If it saves one american CITIZEN'S life I say stop everyone and check everyone!

Please show me the section of the law that allows this.  I cannot seem to find it  I do find the section that says complaints based principally on race or ethnicity are not acceptable.  I also find the section that refers to Law enforcement must make Lawful contact and have reasonable suspicion. But I don't think that is what you are referring to so please sow me the section authorizing the pulling over of DARK SKINNED people.  If you need help here is a link to the actual law.