Yes, simple isn't it. If no one is saying all that crap is OK then your statement against it was just nonsense.

Most people are talking about civil rights, the legality and the constitutionality.
Al Sharpton is certainly not most people, but what did he say?
errrrr ....oh yeah civil rights:up:
organise freedom walkers for civil rights(thats like the freedom riders of the civil rights movement but without buses):up:
Forcing wrongful arrest by refusing to hand over documentation....thats a civil right as only citizens can really refuse that request and thus be wrongfully arrested:up:
Perhaps you had better recheck yourself.
In fact if you recheck the two topics that deal with this here the only people even mentioning "human rights" are people like yourself.

Errrrrr........

Argue with a stop sign AVG - its still a stop sign....

As for this - the reality is that it will be so freakin funny if the DOJ comes up and says this is unconstitutional. Because it mirrors federal law! That means that federal immigration law will have to be deemed unconstitutional - and I don't think any career politician wants to go there.

I have no problem with this - but I do think there are better ways to solve the problem. Instead of requiring proof of citizenship/legal immigrant status, what should be done is the following

#1) Deny illegals any form of social safety net through the government. This means no welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc. Provide proof of legal status, and you get the benefits of the taxpayer funded net.

#2) Require proof of legal residence from parents enrolling children in schoos.

#3) Hold employers accountable - not only with fines, but with imprisonment, for intentional or consistent hiring of illegals, or any lack of due diligence in ascertaining proper legal status. This means if an employer does their job, and an illegal makes it into the workforce, they are not punished, mistakes happen - but when it is a policy - it needs to be hammered down on.

Realize that many illegals do work - but they do so under the table. By not paying taxes, they rob the system. They also avail themselves of the social safety net, taking even further (because they have no "job" - they get significant benefits - while earning money) from the rest of society by double dipping as it were. Then add in the jobs that they have....

12 Million illegals. Pretend only 1/3 of them work for a moment. Now - if all the illegals were not able to collect social net benefits, and couldn't find work, that would be a HUGE burden lifted off the government dole system, as well as would free up 4 Million jobs for the current, legal workers in the country....

Of course, that makes too much sense, so we can't enforce the existing laws and cut off the illegals access to freebies.

Haplo, even if they work it doesn't matter, the whole lot together don't pay in enough taxes to even notice, even assuming all 12 million work (average per capita illegal income is around 8 grand a year, so even just the FICA if all paid would be chump change.

Also, they send a large fraction of their incomes back home—which is why Mexico enables illegal immigration.

Your points are excellent, though.

Tater - at 8k a year - they could file taxes and get not only what they paid in (if they actually did) - but would qualify for all the EIC handouts too! I totally agree they are a draining regardless, it just amazes me that somehow this is more about civil rights of people illegally here - than it is about the civil rights of the legal citizen to not have his wallet robbed by illegals on welfare, have his job stolen by illegals, and not have his streets safe to walk because of illegals who also happen to be pushing drugs, raping and killing US citizens.

What about OUR civil rights?

And its amazing that it isn't about that at all, the problem is the legislation as envisaged to deal with illegals will be infringing on the civil rights of American citizens.
Plus of course its gonna cost the tax payers in arizona a fortune.

Its amazing how people can be so vocally in favour of legislation about a problem they are rightly concerned about when the legislation is not really going to do anything about the problem.

I haven't read the exact bill, but right now, local law enforcement authorities and agencies are NOT ALLOWED to ask immigration status, or indeed do anything about it if they suspect illegals. A law to allow this, so that any normal law enforcement (or other State/city enforcement activity) activity requires a citizenship check would be sensible. A DUI checkpoint? DL, and proof of citizenship or get hassled. Get pulled over for a broken tail light? Fine, citizenship check. Pulling someone over for having dark hair? Not cool.

IMO, any interaction with government at all should require proof of citizenship. Go to the ER? You get stabilized, then citizenship or insurance is established. If you are not a US citizen, after you are stabilized you get repatriated. Get a traffic ticket and you're illegal? Buh bye, off you go back to Mexico (face it, we have a mexican illegal immigration problem). Anyone crossing the border armed is not an immigrant, they are an invader. ROE should allow leathal force on anyone IDed with a weapon crossing. If tax people, or some sort of business inspection happens, it should always include holding the employees, and checking their immigration status vs their W-4s. Illegals should be deported, and if anyone has falsified a SSN, they should go to PRISON, then get repatriated. Census workers? Yeah, they should absolutely be spies to check status. Cops should follow the census people around arresting people.

Again, once we have some reasonable laws in place, AND we shut down the border to illegal crossing, THEN we should massively increase the legal immigration (including some sort of guest worker program). In the case of a path to citizenship, we should perhaps allow what we do already as open to anyone, then make sure that a certain % of the increase goes to people who can prove they have the means to not be a burden. That means perhaps putting money in escrow for insurance (along with a waiver of any government care), or a job contract, etc.

Mighty interesting:

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/...arce_39e1d.JPG

Right: AZ State senator and author of immigration bill Russell Pearce. Left: J.T. Ready

And then there's this:

Second from right: J.T. Ready at a Neo-Nazi rally in Nebraska:

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/...eady_c0a49.JPG

This bill from the same Russell Pearce who circulated an email containing articles written by a Neo-Nazi group: http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoen...l?surround=lfn

I have no idea, myself, but what does such a picture mean? Some guy wearing flags comes up and asks a state rep to take a picture with him, and that connects them? Looking where you link from they make the claim he used info from some POS newsletter, which is certainly a problem. OTOH, this guy is just a state legislator, any goon can get that job. That he might be a POS doesn't make the bill bad by itself. Requiring the arrest of illegals is of course GOOD, since they are, duh, criminals by definition.

BTW, if this is a real problem, would you have a problem with any politician being pals with a domestic terrorist?

Don't you think you should?
After all it is rather hard to talk about a document you havn't read.
Then again as Jan Brewer said it is unlikely to stand up in its current form maybe it isn't worth reading.

Yes they are.

I'm not in Arizona, doesn't matter much to me.

You posted about the US health care bill, and I'm confident you have not read the 2800 page document, plus every single law it updates or references. Heck, no one who voted for it had done that. Not one, I guarantee.

Here ya go:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

The part that most relates to the claim of profiling (bold is my emphasis):

And later:

Gee whiz - a politician got his picture taken with someone - then that someone showed up at a neo-nazi rally - or maybe had been there beforehand - so the politician must be a neo-nazi too right?

Well what does that say about Obama? Ya know him and his buddy Bill Ayers have had a picture or two made.... guess Obama is a closet bomb building terrorist out to kill cops now? Or what about Jeremy Wright? Surely the then senator and his pastor have been photographed, so Obama must be an anti-white racist, a hate everything american bigot. His marching in the Million Man March with Farrikan must mean he really is a muslim too!

I could go on and on - but the fact is politicians never know every detail about every person they are photographed with. Trying to link the "writer" (when in reality it is written by numerous staffers in many different offices) to a nutball on the basis of a photo shows how desperate some are to find any way to stop the 70% of the LEGAL CITIZENS who support this law from standing up for their rights.

Looks photo shopped to me. Hey guys, you wear the tan shirts sporting the swastika and well, I'll just hang out in my gray suit. :up:

That second image is disgusting.

Least they're honest about their politics (read the sign).

Yeah, this JT Ready is a real piece of work....geez.....he is like a rash all over the internet.

BTW, while perfectly legal, associating with Nazis should be disqualifying from public life. Not by any statute, but by public or party outrage.

The same should also be true of anyone associating with communists.

The latter would be rough on the current administration

You knew something like this was coming. Bonus points for style. :rotfl2:

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/S...-92091314.html

To read some of the posts that were made here during the 08 campaign, that's precisely the conclusion many here came to.

I was posting that simply to prove what's good for the goose is good for the gander. :03:

1. I think the Federal Executive Branch needs to stay out of this. If and only if there is an actual case should the Federal Judicial Branch get involved; not before.

2. I think everyone can agree that this Arizona law has the potential for misuse. But having the potential for misuse is not the same as a certainty of misuse. The solution is not to kill the law, but to ensure that the proper safeguards and oversight is in place to ensure that this law is not misused.

Since the Judicial Branch does not rule on hypothetical cases, we will have to wait until this law is actually misused, as determined by judicial review, before thinking of overturning this law.

I am not convinced this is going to be an effective law and I hope Arizona has considered any unintended consequences concerning the enforcement of this law. But from what I have read about the law, I don't think there is any merit that this law violates any part of the Constitution.

A State can't have a law that is unconstitutional. But there is no requirement that the laws of any State have to be effective or even make sense.