And all the pantywaists from both parties that came before Obama.

Yep, them too.

Anyway, remember when I was asking "where's the outrage over the Federal law"? Why's this an AZ issue and not a Federal government issue?

If it's so "flawed", Mr. President, why haven't you called for overturning the Federal law? WHY?

And WHY do you people tolerate this President making up "scary stories" about people "going out for ice cream and never coming home" (because of this law)? WHY?

Here ya go - Get educated:

This law mirrors the Federal law except that it makes E-Verify mandatory for employers, and does not prosecute those who give shelter to seemingly homeless, such as churches, soup kitchesn, service groups, and the like. It is being state applied to eliminate the need for officers to be federally trained, and for local enforcement. The state legislatures felt compelled to do so when requests for assistance went unanswered despite increasingly dire circumstances. This included the recent murder of a rancher, and increased incidents of drug-related problems, violence, kidnapping, and unsecured borders.
The elements of reasonable suspicion and probable cause were settled by the Supreme Court in 1968. This has been a standard for all police work since that time and is taught in law enforcement academies. The case was Terry vs. Ohio. Other cases have fine tuned this issue and are included in the links. Below is a quick link to a summary document.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m013006.pdf

Here is the link to more quick information on the landmark case. It included a "stop and frisk" decision as well as what is "concern space" within the reach of a driver during a traffic stop. It is to ensure safety of the responding officer, the public as well as what is reasonable for basic questioning that is not considered confinement. This is important because of the process of "reasonable suspicion", and what is needed to better understand the Arizona immigration law.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/13012/Terry-v-Ohio.html

Arizona's immigration law 1070 is fully compliant with this well-established ruling of 42 years ago, and in consideration of listed related cases! The public needs to be better informed that the police procedures are nothing new. When a law enforcement officer stops someone, they have to be able to explain why something seemed suspicious or worth pursuing. What was odd or concerning that caught their attention such to the degree they felt the need to follow up. The time, location, lighting, what is heard (say an alarm), other known information such as bulletins, past experiences, and observations all come together to create a need for the officer to "check things out." An example: officer on patrol at 11 p.m. sees a man pulling a screen off the window of a residence. He is crouching as not to be seen. After asking the man what he was doing there, he is told the man has locked himself out of the house and doesn't want to wake his family. The officer asks for ID and sees the picture on the driver's license matches the man's face and the address on the license is the same as the residence at that location. False alarm to what might have been a serious crime. Right? Well, he takes the man to the door to ring the bell, and the now ex-wife tells the officer they are recently divorced and that she has a restraining order because he broke in last week and assaulted her. Now the officer goes from reasonable suspicion to probable cause to make an arrest. Every situation is going to be unique with twists and turns, and the detail gathering varies circumstantially.
Public education is essential as anxiety is high amonng citizens andn non-citizens alike. The news media and many legislators from other states are not aware of law enforcement procedures that have already been deemed constitutional by the highest court.

Interesting points/
But did anyone else think of the Codex Alera series by Jim Butcher from the title?
HAIL OCTAVIAN.

I guess Cali's elected officials don't realize that they have a voter approved California law aimed at dealing with illegal aliens very similar to AZ's already on the books....

Calif. Penal Code Sec. 834b

834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

Now they'll have to boycott themselves, the racists!!!!

Here's the difference:

CA is much more cost-prohibitive for an undocumented person to reside in. I'll use my neighborhood as an example: A beautiful 2850 square-foot home, 4 br / 3 ba, 3 car garage, built in 2008 (on my street), will cost you $140K - $180K. That same home in CA will be double that, if not more, even in a "less-desirable" neighborhood. Insurance, taxes, and basic cost of living is also much higher in CA.

Maybe that's "racist" in and of itself. Hey CA, why can't a poor undocumented worker afford to live in your state? Hmmm?

So, while CA can, as a state, act all "holier-than-thou" when it comes to problems associated with illegal immigration, the fact remains that their "problem" pales in comparison to that confronted by AZ.

__________________

By the way, good ol' "hope-y change-y" Obama APOLOGIZED to China for AZ's law. Yeah. China. The kings of human rights abuses. As if we have to justify ourselves, the strongest nation on the planet, to CHINA.

All you sheep who voted for this clown, instead of criticizing a state for taking an unenforced Federal law into its own hands and standing up for its people, should INSTEAD be wondering by now why we have a POTUS with an overcooked spaghetti noodle for a backbone.

MEANWHILE, public support for SB1070 is growing. Latest reports show 75% in favor, and even among those who harbor resentment or anger about the topic, overwhelmingly their anger is directed at the Feds, not the illegals themselves. Ooooooh, better get some positive spin on this, Mr. President... Your backside is hanging out in the breeze.

AZhitman wrote:THEN, we have Mexico's moron President Calderon, coming into OUR country and criticizing OUR laws? And our sissy-a$$ President stands there nodding his head? BULLS***. Know what Mexico does to illegal immigrants from other countries? They're abused, raped, tortured, killed. Yeah. And you're gonna question OUR record on human rights?

At least there's a congressman willing to speak his mind, and he's from Californian no less! I think he spoke for a lot of people that weren't his constituents when he was in front of the mic. That he used such a great quote from Teddy Roosevelt made it even better.

AZ, when you talk about CA being cost prohibitive, you're not thinking like the illegals who have a network set up over here. A combination of factors make it very attractive for the illegals.

First is the ability to get lost in the crowd. 13 million people in the LA. basin make that very easy as long as you maintain a low profile.

Illegals here have a very nice setup that includes sometimes four or five families living under one roof until they can afford better. Each family pays only a portion of the rent making it very affordable.

A sympathetic political structure, as you point out, adds to it. Suburbs like Pomona have watched as major companies and plants like General Dynamics have gone away, not be replaced by other major players. As the town deteriorated, it became solely dependent on local taxes from "mom & pop" businesses like liquor stores, mini-markets, flea markets and the like. So it encouraged the influx and harboring of illegals. With four or five undocumented families per house they have a large number of consumers who only frequent those types of stores. That means a lot to sales tax revenue compared to only one legitimate family per home.

California has created its own nightmare with a lot of help from the federal government.

Good points. Thanks Steve... Apparently, Calderon (the dimwit) isn't done criticizing the US.

Now, he's taking offense at our gun laws and is blaming us for our lax border security, AND wants us to do a better job of protecting the "rights" of Mexico's citizens.

Wait, WHAT?

He's got some nerve. Mexico's "citizens" need to STAY THE F*** HOME. And since when does the president of a pissant third-world country get to dictate OUR policies?

Where the hell is our President? Would someone PLEASE explain to me why he's not being protested against, impeached, or hanged for treason? Did we really elect a chicken-s*** pansy?

Grow a sack, Obama.

p.s. Cuba also has some s*** to say. Gotta love these illegitimate halfass regimes who all of a sudden have been emboldened and given "legitimacy" by the current administration.

At least, under pressure, Obama's going to try to appear like he's actually doing something. Far too little.

This Associated Press story;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37340747/ns ... s-security

Yeah.

That's all well and good.

HOWEVER.... *HIS* Administration also has basically neutered the AZ law (which, need I remind everyone, boasts a 75% approval rating) by instructing the Feds (ICE) to NOT process illegals taken into custody by AZ law enforcement.

You read that right.

They've been instructed to NOT do the job that we, the taxpayers. have paid them to do, SIMPLY because they don't agree with it...

YET, they haven't read it, haven't compared it to other states' laws, and haven't done a DAMN THING to address a problem that CLEARLY lies withing the Feds' jurisdiction.

SO, again, I ask those of you who supported this numbskull: HOW can you justify these idiotic actions by our elected officials?

Could it be that the conspiracy theorist were right all along? That Obama and his criminal syndicate have thrown out the Constitution and are moving us towards a Global Government?

If not, how does one explain their incompetence and blatant disregard for logic and reason?

If there is a conspiracy likely it is both parties working together with the intent of having a ruling wealthy class. They trade off, the millionaire Republicans working hard to give breaks to the wealthiest and promoting weathy businesspeople at the expense of the lower middle class, while the millionaire Democrats promote and protect the poorest classes at the expense of the middle class. The end result is the same; they both work for a ruling wealthy class dominating a poor working class and eliminating the middle class. They're playing a "good cop, bad cop" game with Americans.

THIS is the kind of two-faced monkey business that Obama and the rest of the Lefties are applauding... Calderon can lip off all he wants about the AZ law, but educate yourselves on the hypocrisy of his ignorant and idiotic comments:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010 ... titialskip

Ask yourself why OUR President sides with a third-world faux leader rather than 75% of the AMERICAN people?

(Side note: Steve, that makes a lot of sense... great post. I'd never thought about it in that light.)

audtatious wrote:

AZhitman wrote:And the infuriating part of it was this:

All this from kids who think Cinco De Mayo is a celebration of Mexican Independence.....Not all, but quite the large number do.

Hell, It's really a "nothing" celebration in Mexico, just something in the US to encourage taco's with beer

If only people knew the reason why the mexicans celebrate Cinco De Mayo they won a battle but lost a war too the french the French had control of Mexico.

Holy shortsightedness, Batman!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... .A.+Now%29

I watched an interview with one of the city councilmen on the Channel 5 News this morning. He was confronted by a weatherman since the news people wouldn't ask any tough questions. He admitted that they voted in favor of the boycott as a "feel good" show of support for the two council members that introduced the measure without doing any research, had no facts or figures, etc., etc., etc. Here it is, a month later, the first contract is up and they're not willing to stick to their guns. Pretty obvious their word is meaningless.

srellim234 wrote:Holy shortsightedness, Batman!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... .A.+Now%29

I watched an interview with one of the city councilmen on the Channel 5 News this morning. He was confronted by a weatherman since the news people wouldn't ask any tough questions. He admitted that they voted in favor of the boycott as a "feel good" show of support for the two council members that introduced the measure without doing any research, had no facts or figures, etc., etc., etc. Here it is, a month later, the first contract is up and they're not willing to stick to their guns. Pretty obvious their word is meaningless.

Thanks for posting this!

"Safety" my arse! They just don't want to lose the money, of course ... what a bunch of hypocrites! So much for stupid stances on principles. If they truly believed in the boycott, they should/would not give in (even though I think the boycott is stupid in the first place).

Z

You guys have some real mental giants running that state. Makes me sad for all the smart people stuck there...

srellim234 wrote:Bear in mind that the majority of the citizens in this country, including those in California, agree with Arizona's take on the problem and want similar laws enacted here.

AZHitman wrote:rather than 75% of the AMERICAN people?

I'm late to this party, but please, don't bear that in mind. The overwhelming majority of American citizens are not legal scholars, and there are even fewer legal scholars with a focus on Constitutional limits on government power, as it relates to individual rights.

It is, or was until it was amended, a controversial law that could have created a web of Constitutionally-troubling and policy-harming effects. A discussion of the merits and flaws of the law deserves more than State-on-State bashing. Yeah, the boycotts are silly, but come on, let's at least be a little more enlightened.

/rant

IBCoupe wrote:I'm late to this party, but please, don't bear that in mind. The overwhelming majority of American citizens are not legal scholars, and there are even fewer legal scholars with a focus on Constitutional limits on government power, as it relates to individual rights.

Ah yes, the 'ole "common people are too stupid to know what is best for them" line of thinking.

IBCoupe wrote: It is, or was until it was amended, a controversial law that could have created a web of Constitutionally-troubling and policy-harming effects.

It was amended almost immediately to clear up the points that were "troubling", yet the Fed law still allows for profiling and asking for papers on a whim. Where is the backlash against the unfair Fed law?

audtatious wrote:Ah yes, the 'ole "common people are too stupid to know what is best for them" line of thinking.

No, it's the ol' "common people are too ignorant and emotional to be trusted with the task of preserving minority rights" line of thinking. The one that finds justification in pretty much every populist nation, and every decade of our history.

audtatious wrote:It was amended almost immediately to clear up the points that were "troubling", yet the Fed law still allows for profiling and asking for papers on a whim. Where is the backlash against the unfair Fed law?

'Cause there are oh-so-many Federal agents roaming the streets of downtown Phoenix, right? There's two factors that can cause alarm - what you're identifying is the ease of abuse, and what the law provided was not only that ease, but also a greater opportunity for abuse.

I WILL bear that the majority of Americans agree with Arizona's take that the federal government is unwilling/unable to enforce its own immigration laws and something needs to be done. I also said they want a similar local law passed with changes addressing many of the shortcomings of the Arizona legislation. I didn't say they wanted the exact same law.

As for not being legal scholars, you don't need to be to have an opinion. I accept the Pythagorean theorem in math to be true because mathematical scholars, of which I am not, have deemed it to be true. In the case of this immigration legislation I expect the members of the Supreme Court to be the legal scholars who should make the determination as to the constitutionality of it as it relates to protecting things like minority rights and whether or not it can be a states' rights issue. That's their job.

Certainly you don't need to be a legal scholar to have an opinion about the law, but to have an educated and reasonably objective opinion? Yeah, it helps.

That a lot of people have an opinion does not make that opinion good. There's a reason why we don't allow a strict majority rule (besides impracticality) in this country.

An educated and reasonable opinion is what we have. We may disagree with you; that doesn't mean we're ignorant. The fact of the matter is that we are also in the middle of this issue in terms of day in, day out dealing with it. That adds a perspective different from your personal experience and thus could be a lot of what leads us to a different opinion.

A majority opinion is not always good but that also doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad. I'll entertain the thought that the majority may or may not be right and let the Supreme Court handle the constitutionality of it.

I'm not saying that people can't ever have an educated opinion otherwise, either. I'm not saying that a majority opinion is bad.

I'm just chiming in on the implicit claim that the fact that 75% of Americans support the AZ law is somehow important. When the primary objections to the law concern minority rights, the majority view is absolutely irrelevant. Or, rather, the view itself is not irrelevant, but the fact that a majority hold that view is.

You are right regarding the majority opinion and proper legislaton. Majority opinion does matter and indicate what may or may not have to be overcome in terms of the social aspect of issue. A perfect example of that would be black/white race relations in this country. Despite the great strides we've made as a country in terms of legislation and social progress there's still a long way to go before backs and whites succeed in becoming color blind.

Absolutely right. There's no way for government to legislate its way to population happiness. But what it can do is try to do what its population desires without violating individual rights. And where individual rights come up against doing what's popular, we ought to strive to be smart enough to tell the voters:


And the critics of the Arizona law say that this is one of those times.

IBCoupe wrote:I'm just chiming in on the implicit claim that the fact that 75% of Americans support the AZ law is somehow important. When the primary objections to the law concern minority rights, the majority view is absolutely irrelevant. Or, rather, the view itself is not irrelevant, but the fact that a majority hold that view is.

It IS "somehow important".

Just because something about the law appears "distasteful" to those who don't read it (it's only 10 pages, take it along for your next morning dump), doesn't mean that the will of the people should be overruled.

Key words: The WILL of the PEOPLE.

That damn pesky Constitution again. I know, it trips up a lot of smart people... even our current POTUS.

Y'know, given your logic, let's look back in history: When 90% of Americans felt Blacks should be able to sit at the same lunch counters as Whites, the objections of minority Whites in certain rural southeastern communities were rendered null and void, irrelevant.

_______________________

Getting to your mention of objections over minority rights: Rather than damning the law (still unread by a majority of high-profile critics, btw), why not take a step back, quit panicking, and remember that there is ALREADY a functional system of checks and balances in place to combat the oh-so-very-frightening scenario you're alluding to... the possibility that (OMG) someone will be "profiled" or "harassed" unjustly.

Guess what? We have a legal system for that. If a citizen feels they've been treated unfairly, there are lawyers out there (and they are legion) who will gladly take up their case and run with it.

Setting aside the fact that NONE of this would have come to pass had the Fed done its damn job, and setting aside the fact that we have a POTUS who is allowing the Fed to ignore its responsibility to the states (ICE), and setting aside the fact that we have a POTUS who is using border control as a bargaining chip for political manipulation (immigration reform), the overwhelming majority support for this bill (both in AZ and other states) IS patently important.

Don't even get me started on the POTUS's bald-faced LIE to our Governor that he'd meet with her in a timely manner (he didn't), his s*** manner of not announcing his intention to sue the state over the passage of SB1070, and the fact that AG Holder still hadn't even READ the bill three months after its passage (and after he spouted off about it in the media). The only thing more disgusting than politics is half-assed politics.

AZhitman wrote:Key words: The WILL of the PEOPLE.

...Cannot overcome the Constitution itself, absent a Constitutional Amendment. And if more than 75% of Americans think that the AZ law is peachy keen, you've got that. Get to it. Otherwise, quityerbitchin.

AZhitman wrote:Y'know, given your logic, let's look back in history: When 90% of Americans felt Blacks should be able to sit at the same lunch counters as Whites, the objections of minority Whites in certain rural southeastern communities were rendered null and void, irrelevant.

I've said nothing about minority opinion. It's minority rights that are important.

AZhitman wrote:Getting to your mention of objections over minority rights: Rather than damning the law (still unread by a majority of high-profile critics, btw), why not take a step back, quit panicking, and remember that there is ALREADY a functional system of checks and balances in place to combat the oh-so-very-frightening scenario you're alluding to... the possibility that (OMG) someone will be "profiled" or "harassed" unjustly.

Guess what? We have a legal system for that. If a citizen feels they've been treated unfairly, there are lawyers out there (and they are legion) who will gladly take up their case and run with it.

Alternatively, we could not create new avenues that invite such abuse. We could create our laws in such a way that we're not making portions of the population unjustifiably afraid of the police. In its original incarnation, the law would have made any interaction with the police an opportunity for citizenship investigation. What does that create? A disincentive to interact with the police. A dicincentive to report a crime to the police if you're brown-skinned. A disincentive to cooperate when police are looking for witnesses. A disincentive to open your doors for police.

And the argument that there are systems in place to deal with abuse is entirely unpersuasive, as the abuse has already occured. The damage has been done.

This is what I don't get about conservatives. "We want a small government. Just small enough to look like one of these:"

Just because something about the law appears "distasteful" to those who don't read it (it's only 10 pages, take it along for your next morning dump), doesn't mean that the will of the people should be overruled.

Normally Im on your team AZ, and I support the AZ bill, but I have to take some exception to the above statement.

We are not ruled by the will of the people, and I pray we never are. We are ruled by law. If the will of the people decide they want something, that is illegal, the people have to STFU and realize that what they are after is illegal, and will not happen. We cant get into a pattern of passing laws voted in by popular vote. Thats the point of the representative body we have. This was designed, to our betterment, by our founding fathers, and must needs not be tampered with. Constitutionality trumps the will of the people any day of the week, and twice on sunday. I apologize if I am mischaracterizing what your saying, but I just have to be sure we understand that law is NOT and should NEVER BE determined by the will of the people. Lets not forget, a PERSON is awesome, PEOPLE are stupid.

As far as the AZ bill goes I dont see it being unconstitutional, and all these boycotts are rediculous. People in this country boycott like charlie brown kicks footballs.

Re: IBC - I think you (and other critics) do the professionals who wield the "power" granted by such a law a disservice in ASSUMING that somehow they'd use their "newfound" powers for evil. Not everything has to have rounded corners and padded edges. You think tehe people who'd be dealing with these issues in their day-to-day work (myself included, to a certain extent) wouln't see the dangers in misapplying this authority? That's nanny-statism in and of itself.

Kinda like mandating a sticker on a hooded jacket that says, "Not to be worn backwards while driving".

BTW, I think it'll interest you to note that I stated my opposition to SB1070 clearly here in this very forum, early on (read for yourself, I think I stated my case brilliantly ).

The whining and gnashing of teeth from those who intentionally choose to remain uneducated about the issue (present company excluded), as well as Washington's pathetic and impotent responses to it, are driving me more and more towards support of it every day.

IBCoupe wrote:

audtatious wrote:Ah yes, the 'ole "common people are too stupid to know what is best for them" line of thinking.

No, it's the ol' "common people are too ignorant and emotional to be trusted with the task of preserving minority rights" line of thinking. The one that finds justification in pretty much every populist nation, and every decade of our history.

And the emotionally charged Dem party or the "I want your votes any way I can get them" GOP can be trusted to make decisions that the full population must be forced to follow?

IBCoupe wrote:

audtatious wrote:It was amended almost immediately to clear up the points that were "troubling", yet the Fed law still allows for profiling and asking for papers on a whim. Where is the backlash against the unfair Fed law?

'Cause there are oh-so-many Federal agents roaming the streets of downtown Phoenix, right? There's two factors that can cause alarm - what you're identifying is the ease of abuse, and what the law provided was not only that ease, but also a greater opportunity for abuse.

Yet there has been no abuse reported, just knee jerk reactions concerning what racist whitey wants to do.