AZhitman wrote: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.

It's not nanny-statism. The critics of the law aren't trying to protect supporters, but minorities (edit: not just ethnically speaking). I don't know if the minorities are in favor of it, but the government can't be in the position of people voting to have the government s*** on them.

And it's not about assuming that police are going to abuse their power, it's about refusing to create any more easy opportunities for abuse than those that already exist. No one's saying that all cops are bastards, and no one's saying that no cops are bastards. We all hate lobbying, but it isn't necessarily the case that a politician who accepts huge amounts of money from Big Pharma will necessarily overlook some of the FDA's more negative comments when voting on a particular bill. That doesn't mean we're unjustified in wanting to prevent the opportunity for corruption.

Aud, what were those comments supposed to address?

Assuming you're right, in that case, the critics of the law need to come up with a workable solution.

AND, prior to considering that, they need to OBSERVE and UNDERSTAND the situation here in AZ. Not in Norwalk, CT, or Bozeman, MT. Here. In Arizona.

I'll leave that ball in our esteemed President's court. I'm not optimistic he can return it over the net.

That's a more tenable position.

IBCoupe wrote:Aud, what were those comments supposed to address?

That you can't entrust the Gov to make "feel good" policy for the masses from a minority perspective as a politicians direction would be to either institute said policy because it's what they want (good for their supporters but not necessarily the US as a whole) or they will do it to ensure votes/partisan support. The Gov should never be considered the "morality police" in any means.

It seems you easily dismiss those in "flyover" country to entrust everything to the few who "someone" considers "smart". I personally don't consider people like Nancy Pelosi nor Obama nor Reid to be people capable of dictating my reaction or thoughts about "minorities" because it may be different than theirs.

In other news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and ... 386190.stm
Mexico is filing against AZ over the bill. Does not matter that Mexico's laws are far harsher and those who are caught in Mexico trying to get from other countries to the US are robbed and beaten by Mexican police on a daily basis...who are they to depict our state or foreign policy? Seems the Dems do as long as it mirrors their own feel good policy.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/22/me ... -parkland/
"Mexican drug cartels have set up shop on American soil, maintaining lookout bases in strategic locations in the hills of southern Arizona from which their scouts can monitor every move made by law enforcement officials"

There is a serious issue going on and simply dismissing it as "we hate minorities" is going the wrong way. What the AZ Gov should do is enable the AZ NG to actively patrol instead of having 1600 desk riding troops present that Obama is sending. Take car of things NOW.

^ ... and THAT is why we're pissed.

But the Obamallamas and other hand-wringers can just go on legislating by emotion, pandering to pissant third-world countries, apologizing for the "stupidity" of the American voting public, and dismissing us as racist, hateful bigots... at their own peril.

The silent majority will see him relegated, in the annals of history, to the role of "failed experiment" or "one-hit wonder".

Nothing I've posted is about "feel good."

Nothing I've posted is about who is making the decisions in Washington.

Nothing you've posted serves as a response to the actual criticism I've leveled.

Nothing you've posted serves as a justification as to why we should pay more attention to what the majority says on this subject.

You're just bitching. Find some substance, will you? I don't mean to be harsh, but I'm not going to abide empty anger.

Edit: And if you're going to claim that something's being dismissed as "we hate minorities," it might help to point to where you think that sentiment is being expressed.

IBCoupe wrote:Nothing I've posted is about "feel good."

Yet the large number of people who are pressing for amnesty or forcing the removal of AZ's rights in regards to dealing with illegal immigrants is primarily doing it from either a "that's racist" or "we need to help and protect the poor immigrants (sans the word illegal) who need our help", which is "feel good" policy.

Realize, I'm not specifically putting you in that group but making my own observations.

IBCoupe wrote: Nothing I've posted is about who is making the decisions in Washington.

Yet in regards to the AZ bill it was created due to the non-action of the decision makers in Washington. If the Gov had followed the rules after the '86 amnesty there would not be an issue today. Instead they simply ignored the problem and are now utilizing the current issue as a way to press forth amnesty again. Who benefits the most from this direction other than those who showed total disregard for our laws and our own citizenship by coming here illegally? Not the "common citizen", not those who choose to immigrate here legally.....It's those who can make something on their backs or the Dems in general from a growing demographic that would vote for anyone who offered them something for nothing.

IBCoupe wrote: Nothing you've posted serves as a response to the actual criticism I've leveled.

In regards to Greg's "rather than 75% of the AMERICAN people?" you simply stated the overwhelming majority of citizens are not "scholars" which means they don't know any better. When I brought up the "common people are too stupid" you agreed that they are ignorant and emotional. That being the case then the only track to follow is that smart people need to make decisions for those they find ignorant and incapable of understanding. That's a poor platform to stand on and a total generalization.

IBCoupe wrote: Nothing you've posted serves as a justification as to why we should pay more attention to what the majority says on this subject.

And nothing that you have posted serves as a justification that those smart people you seem to like running the country have the best interests of the US nor the capability to make hard choices to benefit those they are elected to protect.

IBCoupe wrote: You're just bitching. Find some substance, will you? I don't mean to be harsh, but I'm not going to abide empty anger.

Edit: And if you're going to claim that something's being dismissed as "we hate minorities," it might help to point to where you think that sentiment is being expressed.

I'm not just bitchin. If I was I would not offer solutions to the problem, just complain about it.

That brings up a good point...

What do we make of these most recent allegations that POTUS is holding border security "hostage" unless he gets the support he wants for immigration reform?

The border security he would provide can only monitor but not respond. Pretty useless. Your Gov can call the AZ reserves in to provide true security

Listening to "Nappy" Napolitano's pathetic excuse for a speech today at the Center for Strategic and International Studies was painful.

She said, among other stupid untruths, that the border is more secure now than it's ever been, the Administration has been actively engaged and committed to border security, and that there's "no need to wait for border security before passing immigration reform".

She also said that some "are looking to score political points" by depicting the border as far more dangerous than it really is.

Whatever, Janet. STFU. You're a puppethead.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu had some interesting statistics that lend undisputable support to the need for a physical barrier, such as that in Yuma County (which has decreased border crossings NINETY percent... more on that later.

audtatious wrote:Yet the large number of people who are pressing for amnesty or forcing the removal of AZ's rights in regards to dealing with illegal immigrants is primarily doing it from either a "that's racist" or "we need to help and protect the poor immigrants (sans the word illegal) who need our help", which is "feel good" policy.

Realize, I'm not specifically putting you in that group but making my own observations.

Well, if your point is to condemn people who aren't here, it would lessen confusion to stop quoting me when you write. I haven't pressed for amnesty, and no one's taking Arizona's rights away.

audtatious wrote:Yet in regards to the AZ bill it was created due to the non-action of the decision makers in Washington. If the Gov had followed the rules after the '86 amnesty there would not be an issue today. Instead they simply ignored the problem and are now utilizing the current issue as a way to press forth amnesty again. Who benefits the most from this direction other than those who showed total disregard for our laws and our own citizenship by coming here illegally? Not the "common citizen", not those who choose to immigrate here legally.....It's those who can make something on their backs or the Dems in general from a growing demographic that would vote for anyone who offered them something for nothing.

Frustration with the federal government does not justify the making of bad law.

audtatious wrote:In regards to Greg's "rather than 75% of the AMERICAN people?" you simply stated the overwhelming majority of citizens are not "scholars" which means they don't know any better. When I brought up the "common people are too stupid" you agreed that they are ignorant and emotional. That being the case then the only track to follow is that smart people need to make decisions for those they find ignorant and incapable of understanding. That's a poor platform to stand on and a total generalization.

It's cool that you can pick out three words that I used and ignore the rest of it. It really is. Nevermind the fact that I restricted that assessment to the act of legislating minority rights.

audtatious wrote:And nothing that you have posted serves as a justification that those smart people you seem to like running the country have the best interests of the US nor the capability to make hard choices to benefit those they are elected to protect.

I'm not trying to defend the government. Either you're entirely confused, or you're entirely aware of this, and you're trying to tell me that you're not trying to justify the law? This would be a neat trick, as the quoted paragraph that references the "'86 amnesty" is nothing but a poor attempt to justify the law.

audtatious wrote:I'm not just bitchin. If I was I would not offer solutions to the problem, just complain about it.

Which solution did you present? That the federal government shouldn't have behaved in a certain way years ago? I'm not sure if anyone's told you, but that's not an actual solution, unless you've got a secret time machine.

AZhitman wrote:What do we make of these most recent allegations that POTUS is holding border security "hostage" unless he gets the support he wants for immigration reform?

It would make a certain kind of sense. A secure border is often touted as the mainstay of any immigration reform, and there's a chance that providing it will make some in Washington sufficiently happy to ignore the rest of the issue. Which would mean that we'd have a secure border, but we wouldn't have actually addressed the issue.

Here's something I saw this morning:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06 ... sparities/

There's more than a few people up in arms that the Department of Labor is helping illegal immigrants get equal pay. Really, this kind of thing has been available to American workers all along, so it's not something special made for illegal immigrants. But in a larger view, it makes a ton of sense: if employers are going to have to pay illegal immigrants the same wages as an American citizen, and there's potentially legal ramifications to hiring an illegal immigrant, why do it?

Those same angry people want the illegal immigrant and the employer to be reported to ICE and the Justice Department, but that overlooks the simple fact: if a worker thinks they will be reported to ICE for reporting their employer, they just won't report their employer.

IBCoupe wrote:Well, if your point is to condemn people who aren't here, it would lessen confusion to stop quoting me when you write. I haven't pressed for amnesty, and no one's taking Arizona's rights away.

Sometimes the shoe fits and others, as in your case it seems, don't.

IBcoupe wrote: Frustration with the federal government does not justify the making of bad law.

I don't think it's bad law and since the Feds are not doing their part then AZ is within it's rights via the 10th Amendment to protect its people.

IBcoupe wrote: It's cool that you can pick out three words that I used and ignore the rest of it. It really is. Nevermind the fact that I restricted that assessment to the act of legislating minority rights.

Maybe it is. You fed into it by going down the "common man is too ignorant" path. We are a nation of people whose opinions matter. We are not a nation of a small segment of people who deem themselves smarter than everyone else and feel their wants or desires should be mandated for the good of the "underlings".

IBcoupe wrote: I'm not trying to defend the government. Either you're entirely confused, or you're entirely aware of this, and you're trying to tell me that you're not trying to justify the law? This would be a neat trick, as the quoted paragraph that references the "'86 amnesty" is nothing but a poor attempt to justify the law.

I feel the law is justified. I feel the Feds have not done their part to protect our borders.

IBcoupe wrote: Which solution did you present? That the federal government shouldn't have behaved in a certain way years ago? I'm not sure if anyone's told you, but that's not an actual solution, unless you've got a secret time machine.

No, the solution is for the Feds to enforce the laws. Instead they have consistently ignored them and the current Administration is attempting another amnesty with no intentions of enforcing the current laws now nor afterward. What's the point? More empty promises? Laws were put in place after '86 to stop it from happening again. We will be right back here in another 10-20 years. AZ has taken a step forward to resolve the financial (and physical) blood letting and other states are looking to follow suit. If the Feds can't do it then the states themselves should protect themselves and their citizens.

audtatious wrote:I don't think it's bad law and since the Feds are not doing their part then AZ is within it's rights via the 10th Amendment to protect its people.

That's not what would make it bad law. I feel like we're talking past each other. What would make it bad law is that it would set up the wrong incentives for police and for the community they serve. What would make it bad law is that it would invite abuse and even nonabusive behavior that, if it isn't on its face unconstitutional, could run into problems with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

audtatious wrote:Maybe it is. You fed into it by going down the "common man is too ignorant" path. We are a nation of people whose opinions matter. We are not a nation of a small segment of people who deem themselves smarter than everyone else and feel their wants or desires should be mandated for the good of the "underlings".

No one's saying any of the things you're arguing against. I want to be absolutely clear about what I have been saying: majority opinion ought to be outright ignored, if not ridiculed, when it seeks to curb individual minority rights. Yes, we are a nation where everyone's opinion matters, but we are a nation where our lawmaking ability as a nation is restricted by a few governing rules. Protecting minority rights is one of those rules. When the majority decides it wants to pass a law that will primarily affect people who notably aren't in the majority, it's important for us to say, "Fackoff, you facking weetawds."

audtatious wrote:I feel the law is justified. I feel the Feds have not done their part to protect our borders.

Also not an excuse for infringing on individual rights.

audtatious wrote:...and the current Administration is attempting another amnesty with no intentions of enforcing the current laws now nor afterward.

This is news to me. You don't happen to have a link, do you?

IBCoupe wrote: That's not what would make it bad law. I feel like we're talking past each other. What would make it bad law is that it would set up the wrong incentives for police and for the community they serve. What would make it bad law is that it would invite abuse and even nonabusive behavior that, if it isn't on its face unconstitutional, could run into problems with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Yet Police already ask for ID upon a traffic stop or investigation, this pretty much just extends it to validating citizenship. Fed law states that those from other countries must carry their paperwork with them at all times as well. I see no abuse and no trampling on civil rights.

IBcoupe wrote:No one's saying any of the things you're arguing against. I want to be absolutely clear about what I have been saying: majority opinion ought to be outright ignored, if not ridiculed, when it seeks to curb individual minority rights. Yes, we are a nation where everyone's opinion matters, but we are a nation where our lawmaking ability as a nation is restricted by a few governing rules. Protecting minority rights is one of those rules. When the majority decides it wants to pass a law that will primarily affect people who notably aren't in the majority, it's important for us to say, "Fackoff, you facking weetawds."

I agree with the above. Asking for ID and validating ID against citizenship based upon a legal police "stop" is not stepping on any citizens rights.

In 20 years or so whitey will be a minority, wonder if the same concern would be considered

IBcoupe wrote:Also not an excuse for infringing on individual rights.

Show me infringement of individual rights when ID is checked during investigations regardless of the law? How is taking that a step further and validating citizenship "stepping over the line".

IBcoupe wrote:This is news to me. You don't happen to have a link, do you?

Other than the latest via Senator Jon Kyl, no, not that specifically labels it amnesty.

The following pretty much results in amnesty:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/immi ... obama.html

audtatious wrote:Yet Police already ask for ID upon a traffic stop or investigation, this pretty much just extends it to validating citizenship. Fed law states that those from other countries must carry their paperwork with them at all times as well. I see no abuse and no trampling on civil rights.

That's what it does now, post-amendment. What it did before extended beyond "traffic stop or investigation" to "any contact with police." What does that do for people who don't want to be detained while their citizenship is investigated for whatever reason? Means they don't want to contact the police.

audtatious wrote:I agree with the above. Asking for ID and validating ID against citizenship based upon a legal police "stop" is not stepping on any citizens rights.

In 20 years or so whitey will be a minority, wonder if the same concern would be considered

Again, you're conflating the law in its final, far less objectionable form for the law in its original, objected-to form.

And, yes, the same concern would be shown. Individual rights are individual rights, and that's the reason why I wrote in one post: "Not just ethnically-speaking." Political minorities, regional minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities - you name it. A law that invovles these people's rights does not gain points by being popular.

audtatious wrote:Show me infringement of individual rights when ID is checked during investigations regardless of the law? How is taking that a step further and validating citizenship "stepping over the line".

As per my above response.

audtatious wrote:Other than the latest via Senator Jon Kyl, no, not that specifically labels it amnesty.

The following pretty much results in amnesty:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/immi ... obama.html

It almost does:

Charles E. Schumer and Lindsey O. Graham wrote:For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path forward. They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background checks and be proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence.

There's a number of other parts to the proposed bill, but I'm pretty sure this is the part you're zeroing in on.

Let's not delude ourselves... Based on everything I've read and heard (and trust me, I'm less than 100 yards from the "eye of the storm" on this issue), anytime you hear "comprehensive immigration reform", that includes, at least in part, paths to citizenship and a component of amnesty.

AZhitman wrote:Let's not delude ourselves... Based on everything I've read and heard (and trust me, I'm less than 100 yards from the "eye of the storm" on this issue), anytime you hear "comprehensive immigration reform", that includes, at least in part, paths to citizenship and a component of amnesty.

Let's not be foolish, either. With however many million illegal immigrants there are in the country, any real comprehensive immigration reform (sans quotes) absolutely has to incorporate something like that in order to be a workable solution to anything. Any law that doesn't is, effectively, going to be little more than printed paper.

I just wanted to add one more thing, aud: in its amended form, the Arizona law doesn't really provide much that police in Arizona weren't allowed to do before. They could already investigate citizenship for apprehended suspects in an existing investigation. Food for thought.

The hub-bub was about the new law in its original form. If there's ongoing protests about the existing law, it's only because there are stupid people on all sides of this issue.

IBCoupe wrote:The hub-bub was about the new law in its original form. If there's ongoing protests about the existing law, it's only because there are stupid people on all sides of this issue.

No.

The stupid exists ONLY on the side of those who have not (still) read it in its entirety and can't comprehend that there's "nothing new under the sun".

Let's limit the bashing to those who are still in a panic over something they simply CHOOSE not to understand. That's terribly closed-minded.

Interestingly, that's the charge that's been levied at conservatives for years (over issues like gay marriage): That predispositions and prejudices limit one's ability to see the entire issue. Turnabout is, as they say, fair play.

IBCoupe wrote:

AZhitman wrote:Let's not delude ourselves... Based on everything I've read and heard (and trust me, I'm less than 100 yards from the "eye of the storm" on this issue), anytime you hear "comprehensive immigration reform", that includes, at least in part, paths to citizenship and a component of amnesty.

Let's not be foolish, either. With however many million illegal immigrants there are in the country, any real comprehensive immigration reform (sans quotes) absolutely has to incorporate something like that in order to be a workable solution to anything. Any law that doesn't is, effectively, going to be little more than printed paper.

Agreed 100%.

AZhitman wrote:Let's limit the bashing to those who are still in a panic over something they simply CHOOSE not to understand. That's terribly closed-minded.

If you don't mind, I think I'll continue to bash people who just can't get that there were legitimate criticisms of the law prior to its amendment, who continue to debate about the merits of the law.

I understand the excuse that people are frustrated. I understand the excuse that the federal government isn't doing enough. An excuse is not a justification. It's the difference between saying, "I know it's not that good, but..." and "No, it's great. It wouldn't be good, except for..."

An excuse is mplicit acknowledgment that this law was a crappy law before it was amended, and I can appreciate the feeling that there were no other options. I don't understand how people can think that's a defense to a charge that the law could be illegal, or that, in practice, it would create many negative side-effects that would outweigh the good.

On the other forum, we had this conversation a long time ago, and at one point, the exchange went:

Me: Sometimes something isn't better than nothing.
Other Guy: Isn't that what Obama said about the stimulus, though?
Me: So you're suddenly in favor of that line of thinking?

I maintain that there are stupid people on every side of every issue, and this one is no exception.

IBCoupe wrote: That's what it does now, post-amendment. What it did before extended beyond "traffic stop or investigation" to "any contact with police." What does that do for people who don't want to be detained while their citizenship is investigated for whatever reason? Means they don't want to contact the police.

The "before" you keep focusing on was a law that mirrored Fed law. It was amended within a day or so of being released. Why must you and others focus on something that is not in place anymore other than to simply dismiss it with a swipe of your hand as being proof of racism or whatever reasoning you are going for? You don't like it and the only thing you can focus on is the first iteration which was never enforced in the first place. Hell, the current version is not even in play yet but you can't get away from the initial writing.

IBcoupe wrote: Again, you're conflating the law in its final, far less objectionable form for the law in its original, objected-to form.

Again, you are focusing on the writing of the law which was a mirror of existing Fed law that has already been changed. The first writing NEVER went into effect. The current writing is not even in effect yet.

IBcoupe wrote:

audtatious wrote:Other than the latest via Senator Jon Kyl, no, not that specifically labels it amnesty.

The following pretty much results in amnesty:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/immi ... obama.html

It almost does:

Charles E. Schumer and Lindsey O. Graham wrote:For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path forward. They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background checks and be proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence.

There's a number of other parts to the proposed bill, but I'm pretty sure this is the part you're zeroing in on.

Pay a fine, pay back taxes (assuming the Gov can get paperwork to prove income), and give a direct path to every social program there is. The people waiting in line to get here legally are stormed over as common criminals are given a golden key. Then you have the mass exodus from Mexico of millions trying to get here for the "amnesty". Then you have the law worded so those receiving a pass to citizenship can legally bring their family members over here (as happened the last time) which will result in millions more. The border won't be protected and no laws will be enforced. History repeats.

Sounds like a grand idea.

IBCoupe wrote:

AZhitman wrote:Let's limit the bashing to those who are still in a panic over something they simply CHOOSE not to understand. That's terribly closed-minded.

If you don't mind, I think I'll continue to bash people who just can't get that there were legitimate criticisms of the law prior to its amendment, who continue to debate about the merits of the law.

So, now that the critics' concerns are unfounded, now that it basically mirrors other states' existing laws, now that protections have been put in place, and now that all those prior objections are null and void, those who defend the law are "stupid"?

No.

Do as you will, but a bunch of uninformed critics ranting over what's essentially a non-issue seems "stupid" to me.

I can't see how one could label a supporter of the current law "stupid". But, whatever. Wonder where I (as an early critic of the law, who has warmed up to it) stand in that assessment?

Apparently "stupid" is spreading, because more than a dozen other states are scrambling to draft their own version of essentially the same law.

IBCoupe wrote:

AZhitman wrote:Let's not delude ourselves... Based on everything I've read and heard (and trust me, I'm less than 100 yards from the "eye of the storm" on this issue), anytime you hear "comprehensive immigration reform", that includes, at least in part, paths to citizenship and a component of amnesty.

Let's not be foolish, either. With however many million illegal immigrants there are in the country, any real comprehensive immigration reform (sans quotes) absolutely has to incorporate something like that in order to be a workable solution to anything. Any law that doesn't is, effectively, going to be little more than printed paper.

Simply enforce laws that fine individuals and employers from hiring illegals. They will leave on their own if they have no access to a job nor social services. Let Mexico work out their own problems.

IBCoupe wrote: If you don't mind, I think I'll continue to bash people who just can't get that there were legitimate criticisms of the law prior to its amendment, who continue to debate about the merits of the law.

You've been bashing? You need to work harder. This has been a tame little discussion.

...and, again, I can't help but think that geography and the vastly different experiences of living in CT (vs AZ) are partially to blame.

It's certainly not intellect, or the capacity for comprehension, as IBC is remarkably intelligent and well-spoken. It HAS to have something to do with living about as far as geographically possible from the epicenter as one can be (and remain in the contiguous US).

Kinda like people who were born and raised in NorCal can't possibly comprehend the intricacies of Black/White race relations in the deep south. I've spoken several times on this issue, having had the unique opportunity to live in the heart of the south (AL / MS), and in a more "liberal" environment (AZ).

p.s. I lived in Bridgeport, so I know a little about CT, too.

My geography is quite different yet I see and understand the issue relatively well. Then again I remember the '86 amnesty and have no hopes of a Dem controlled Gov, nor a progressive-GOP controlled Gov of doing a damn thing to address the problem. States need to start shrugging off the "nanny Gov" and take matters in their own hands to protect their citizenry.

audtatious wrote:The "before" you keep focusing on was a law that mirrored Fed law. It was amended within a day or so of being released. Why must you and others focus on something that is not in place anymore other than to simply dismiss it with a swipe of your hand as being proof of racism or whatever reasoning you are going for? You don't like it and the only thing you can focus on is the first iteration which was never enforced in the first place. Hell, the current version is not even in play yet but you can't get away from the initial writing.

I don't have a problem with the law in its final form. The debate has always been about the original form, and whether that was legal and a good idea. And as to the federal law (I'm not sure how similar it is without looking it up), once again, the issues is not just how easy it is to abuse, but about how often the opportunity to abuse comes up. There's a big difference how federal officers interact with the public and how state and local cops interact with the public. I already told you this.

audtatious wrote:Again, you are focusing on the writing of the law which was a mirror of existing Fed law that has already been changed. The first writing NEVER went into effect. The current writing is not even in effect yet.

Correct. And so the entire discussion is about the theoretical impact of such a law on a local and state basis. I'm well aware of this.

audtatious wrote:Pay a fine, pay back taxes (assuming the Gov can get paperwork to prove income), and give a direct path to every social program there is. The people waiting in line to get here legally are stormed over as common criminals are given a golden key. Then you have the mass exodus from Mexico of millions trying to get here for the "amnesty". Then you have the law worded so those receiving a pass to citizenship can legally bring their family members over here (as happened the last time) which will result in millions more. The border won't be protected and no laws will be enforced. History repeats.

Sounds like a grand idea.

They are not stormed over. The last sentence of the portion of the article I quoted states very clearly that they get moved to the back of the existing line. What do you want them to do? Move to the back of the line forever? That's unworkable, because it doesn't address the problem. They'll just stay here/keep coming in illegally if you try to do that.

AZhitman wrote:So, now that the critics' concerns are unfounded, now that it basically mirrors other states' existing laws, now that protections have been put in place, and now that all those prior objections are null and void, those who defend the law are "stupid"?

No.

You're right. My answer to that question is "No." The people who continue to defend the original law are stupid, when the best thing they come up with to the criticism is, "We were angry, and a lot of people liked it."