Easy. The federal law is more "harsh" (from a civil rights standpoint) in that it requires zero suspicion of illegality. An INS guy can ask anyone for papers merely to determine their status with no probable cause.

The AZ law can add effectiveness for the simple reason that THE FEDERAL LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCED.

It's not that the fed rules are bad, it's that the feds are not doing their job. If they did their jobs, zero illegals would cross, and the States would not be left with huge bills to pay for them.

The baseline should be that all illegals have to show proof of ID at some point or get kicked out. So the fact that millions NEVER get asked is a bad starting point. That the feds fail so miserably (demonstrable given the 12 million illegals here) is proof that actual enforcement is needed. The AZ law in fact will only marginally improve enforcement, I think the net impact will be near zero—proof is the fact that CA's laws are already very similar to AZ's new law, and look at all the problems caused by illegals there.

Armed men crossing the border have a name—invaders. Would you arrest and Mirandize Soviets coming across the German border in the Cold War (turned hot)? No, you'd shoot them.

My preference would not be shooting, I think the border could be secured without it, but fear of death would go a long way to stop what is extremely casual crossing right now. Pick and choose, and shoot armed invaders first. There are countless secret cam videos online of armed men crossing in the desert. I call armed me "invaders."

IMO, one of the few, legitimate powers of the federal government is defense. People coming across our sovereign border without permission are invaders and should be dealt with as such. As far as eminent domain, presumably you mean taking land for a fence and road alongside. That's certainly an issue, but I know land owners are not permitted to defend their property vs the illegals, either. If I owned border land and people were ruining my property, leaving trash, etc, I'd love to pick them off from my portal with a beer in one hand ;) (yeah, I'd shoot people for littering, too, I'm sort of a radical "environmentalist" in that sense, I always pack out every thing I hike in with when I hike, I ****ing hate litterbugs).

Might be worth asking the land owners what they think first, however. I suppose they could be given the option of securing their length of border themselves to some standard—not sure if they're even allowed to do so on their own, frankly.

Caps Lock strikes again, it was the federal law you were using as an example of just how effective enforcement was.
You cannot cite an example of how good the enforcement of immigration law is then suddenly change your mind because its not the law you thought it was.

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
That has to be the most ridiculous claim ever.
Take Israel as an example, they do some really serious border enforcement, they go all out on military, Border force and police deployment, they still get piles of illegal immigrants crossing the border.
Look at Britain, they do border control in their own ports, around the coast and on mainland Europe and still get loads of illegals.

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
Though if you want to explore that angle how many hundreds of recent incidents of armed men crossing the border happened, meaning of course Mexican and American border patrols accidentally crossing the line as it was discussed by your government and the Mexican government last week.

Has the threat of a death worked well in the past?

No the question I posed was about a very wide strip of land nearly 2000 miles long, which I am sure you can grasp is one hell of a lot of land.
A fence and a road alongside would be completely ineffective for what you proposed.

Miami buisness finds a way to profit from the situation. "Gringo Masks"

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/weird/M...-94782694.html

Here is the bill... read it (unlike our senators/president)

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

Actually I do think they have read it but deny that they have so that they can plead ignorance of the bills content.

That is no longer the actual bill.
Perhaps they read the new version instead so they wouldn't be ignorant of the content, after all when Brewer signed 1070 she did say it wouldn't last in that form.
Its good that they realised the financial clawback wouldn't work, but by only diluting it they are just showing that despite knowing it isn't going to work they are at present unwilling to admit they are going to have to saddle the States taxpayers with very hefty bill in the end.....unless they change their much publicised really popular "populist" law again, and again and again in which case they may as well have never bothered in the first place and should just taken more of the already existing option and let the federal government pick up most of the bill.

If you will take a moment and look at it you will see that it contains the amendments.

But just to make sure for you...

http://azgovernor.gov/documents/SB10...edByHB2162.pdf

they wont

So you don't understand English then as your first link to the Arizona legislation is the unamended version.
You will note that it says 1070, if you run that through a reliable translation it reads 1070
Your second link however is the amended version
A quick translation should show you that it says 1070 as amended by 2162 though I can understand that 1070 as amended by 2162 is quite hard for some to translate.

So take this slowly and try with some help if you get stuck.
If you write "Here is the bill..." and someone says "That is no longer the actual bill." you cannot make the bill suddenly transform by posting the new bill and claiming its what you already posted.

Most of the amendments were added to make the bill even more difficult to refute not to bend to the wishes of the liberals. :rock:

The actual law has changed very little so hey lets get back on topic shall we?

Obama reads the bill, decides to send 1,200 troops to the border.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...mexico-border/

Are you sure you bothered to read it? your seemingly obvious lack of ability to tell the difference as shown by your two links does suggest otherwise.
Those are rather major changes, though they won't be the last , Arizona is going to have to water down the bill so far to try and make it workable it isn't even going to be worth the paper its written on.

Thousands????? up to 1200 until they train more border agents to add to the over 17000 they have already(not counting local and state units already with delegated authority).
But hey its a great idea, the military is already overstretched out foriegn, NG personel are being regularly taken from their usual employment for deployment so why not add another expensive yet ineffective measure with a few hundreds doing immigration patrols for a while.

Yea actually thought I had edited that :doh:

But yea protecting the security of the nation is usually a good idea.

Don't believe everything you read when it comes to what the WH or the government has done. More then likely a few guys with pop guns were deployed. :shifty:

Well Obama says he is going to send troup 'up to 1,200' when its all said and done he might send like 20 probably.

Yes security is a good idea, but ineffective legislation and actions are not a good idea or a good way to spend tax revenue.

Nope but evidently its a way of life.

Which is why Arizona did what they did.

So Arizona knows its a waste of time and money but did it anyway.
And most of those who rail against government waste and ineffective enforcement of immigration laws suddenly come out strongly in favour of Arizonas government wasting money and doing ineffective enforcement.

Priceless:har: