Boycotting Arizona

Ok. This is the problem with the world. People have to stop talking and start realizing what they don’t know. That goes for Palin.

“It is the drink of fascists,” wrote Travis Nichols in Chicago.
.
Foolish misguided Travis — doesn’t have a clue about what fascism really is.

Let me see. Boycott your own State, your own District. Do I have that right? Wow, that really makes sense. You hurt the same people you are attempting to defend.
.
Rather than calling on Obama to uphold the Federal law, call him out to secure the borders you attack a State and it’s new law. Liberals do not make any sense what-so-ever.

Probably not feasible but if the Arizona Iced Tea people wanted to win some friends and get a whole bunch of publicity they’d change the name of the drink until Arizona changes its law. I could actually see the short term publicity netting them more than the outlay.

I’m sorry, I think you can do both. I think it is entirely reasonable to say that Obama is not doing enough to deal with the immigration problem while at the same time saying that Arizona went waaaaay too far. To me, it is a law that reverses “innocent until proven guilty” – the suspect is required to prove his innocence and if he fails to, at that moment at that location, to have the evidence of his innocence, he is presumed guilty. To me, it is a law that redefines “reasonable suspicion” – the very fact that my gut tells me you’re an illegal immigrant is sufficiently reasonable suspicion. It is a law that, without even stating either, codifies racial profiling and racism.
.
Arizona should be ashamed of itself. I hope to hell this law ends up in the Supreme Court.

That is pretty comical. “Arizona Iced Tea – What the fascists drink when they’re not driking Kool-Aid.”

And in other Arizona immigration news -

I think we should catch ’em, we should document ’em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support micro-chipping them. I can micro-chip my dog so I can find it. Why can’t I micro-chip an illegal?

Pat Bertroche, Republican congressional candidate from Iowa.

http://iowaindependent.com/32926/install-microchips-in-illegal-immigrants-gop-candidate-says

Slowly but surely, Jews are to Nazi Germany what Hispanics are to America.
.
*sigh*

And the Rs wonder why we think they’re disgusting and authoritarian

Actually the law doesn’t require profiling. It merely requires that EVERYONE carry proof of citizenship at all times. Don’t leave home without your passport. A D/L is not good eneough…..

Now that Arizona has installed a “papers, please” police state, when are the Tea Party activists going there to protest?
.
They keep telling us that they’re just upset about wasteful government spending and the intrusion of government into our daily lives, and this seems perfect for them.

In many states, the only way Democrats can win is by committing voter fraud — either by counting absentee ballots from dead people, or not requiring a photo ID when registering or voting, or encouraging illegal immigrants to register and vote.
.
Most of the time, people have to present photo ID to cash a check, to rent a movie, even to pay with a credit card at a lot of merchants. What the Democrats oppose is any kind of requirement that people who ID to vote.
.
The Arizona legal residency law is a dagger in the back of the Democrats, because if illegal immigrants are being deported then they are not going to be registering to vote. What Obama and his pets in the media (and here in the Swamp) are so eager to see is the demonization of Arizona, so that the majorities in other states will not get their way and other states will not pass similar legislation.
.
Over at the Sacramento Bee website, where a typical opinion-page article gets 10-20 comments, there were over 300 by this morning at 7:30 — all but a couple of them were in favor of California adopting a similar law, all but a couple critical of the leader of the state senate who wanted a boycott of Arizona. This is the same leader of the state senate who cannot balance a state budget but thinks himself competent to criticize other states.

Foolish misguided Travis — doesn’t have a clue about what fascism really is.
.
Right, because when you think of a state police force asking private individuals to produce their papers in order to show that they are allowed to be there, well, the last group you’d ever think of would be fascists like the Nazi Party.

In many states, jbaustian is chased away from communities by crowds bearing pitchforks and torches.
.
Man, it’s fun to just make claims without providing evidence or proof of any kind. I can see why the conservatives here always do that. Much easier than thinking.

Maybe Arizona Tea can go to the French’s Mustard people for advice.

Has Time magazine ever published an article on the kidnapping epidemic in Phoenix — kidnapping capital of America? More than one per day, and the majority having some connection with either the drug trade, the trade in illegal immigrants, or both.
.
Police investigating a kidnapping are now able to take possible culprits into custody instead of letting them go. The people who benefit the most from this new law will be the Hispanic citizens of Arizona, who will have less to fear from the drug traffickers and immigrant smugglers.

Kevin, since you have nothing to say, STFU.

Right from Limbaugh’s lying lips to the wingers’ pliable minds. Barnum and Lincoln didn’t know the half of it.

“encouraging illegal immigrants to register and vote”
.
Nice spin. Voting illegally in this country is a felony. You’re telling me that an illegal resident is going to put his name and address on a form, risking fines and imprisonment, just so he can vote Democrat?
.
Here’s the real truth:
.
“Beginning after the 2004 election, under Brewer’s command, no less than 100,000 voters, overwhelmingly Hispanics, were blocked from registering to vote. In 2005, the first year of the Great Brown-Out, one in three Phoenix residents found their registration applications rejected.
.
“So I asked Brewer’s office, had she busted a single one of these thousands of allegedly illegal voters? Did she turn over even one name to the feds for prosecution?
.
“No, not one.”
.
More at http://www.gregpalast.com/behind-the-arizona-immigration-lawgop-game-to-swipe-the-november-election/

JB, speaking of voting issues, you forgot to mention the R’s voting machine + Diebold items in 2004 and beyond. Not to mention (which you didn’t, so I will) the former Diebold chief’s public support of Bush. Selective memory, I presume?

AZ population is approx 30% hispanic (legal) this law drives them into the arms of the Democrats very energized. The mid-terms just took on a whole new complexion (pun intended)

kevin: “Foolish misguided Travis — doesn’t have a clue about what fascism really is.
.
Right, because when you think of a state police force asking private individuals to produce their papers in order to show that they are allowed to be there, well, the last group you’d ever think of would be fascists like the Nazi Party. (end of quote)
.
Many countries require people to present documents when requested. Mexico, for one. France, for another. Russia, both now and before during the Soviet era. Actually, nearly all countries except the most primitive have such a requirement.
.
If you are from Guatamala or El Salvador, and are in Mexico illegally, they will send you home in a heartbeat, without appeals.
.
The whole “Nazi” thing might appeal to the lefties here and on CNN and MSNBC, but most people who actually care about this country reject the notion. They want the illegals to go home and stop coming back, and they take a dim view of politicians and media flacks who call them “Nazis” because they want immigration laws enforced.

(quote)AZ population is approx 30% hispanic (legal) this law drives them into the arms of the Democrats very energized. The mid-terms just took on a whole new complexion (pun intended) (end of quote)
.
You assume, incorrectly, that citizens and legal residents of Hispanic heritage like having their state overrun with illegals… taking jobs away from legal residents… creating a crime wave in Hispanic neighborhoods, with murders and kidnappings.
.
Hispanic voters are not much different from non-Hispanic voters, in their attitudes toward immigration.

Police investigating a kidnapping are now able to take possible culprits into custody instead of letting them go.

Yes, because before this law was passed the police in Arizona could not detain suspected kidnappers.

Did you drink your Brawndo today?

Arizona Iced Tea is the new Freedom Fries?
.
How can the Asrizona republicans run when they keep shooting themselves in the foot? Is this bad news for the McCain campaign? Presidential or senate.

The law mandates that police ask for proof of citizenship from anyone they “suspect” of being an illegal immigrant. As I said, the law never mentions it, but how many white, black or even Asian people do you think are going to be pulled over and questioned on their citizenship compared to Hispanics. No, it doesn’t mandate, require, expect or even suggest, but it’s net effect is it effectively creates racial profiling.
.
That said….my use of the word “codify” would be incorrect. “Causes” or “creates” would be more accurate.

The law certainly smells of racial profiling. In my opinion, it is also the wrong approch. Why go after the illegals – go after the people who are hiring them. If they can’t find jobs here they won’t stay. The bigger problem is Mexico itself. If there were jobs there, there would be no need for the illegals who are lookng for work to cross the border. There is always the question, are they taking jobs Americans want but at lower wages? Its kinda like internal outsourcing. Lots of questions, few answers.

From Pat Bertroche web page-
.
“I’m sick and tired of working long hours just to make sure the fat cats maintain their lifestyle. Aren’t you? Pres. Obama promised us change. Changing to Communism isn’t what I had in mind.”
.
Oh and he’s a psychiatrist.

In another context I once wrote this:

That is of course why Constitutional guarantees are necessary, because they run directly counter to human nature especially in times of fear. As I’ve said before, if the temptation to torture weren’t common then the freedom from self-incrimination wouldn’t be necessary to enunciate. If the temptation to railroad criminals weren’t common then the right to a jury trial wouldn’t have been mentioned. Each of our Constitutional guarantees stands directly in the path of the easy way out. That’s why they are there.

Arizona may have a legimate problem. But codifying ‘stop and frisk’ is not a proper solution.

Rather just opine -

A little proof – AZ Gov. election

There has been a great deal of movement along racial lines. In the September poll Goddard had a 3 point lead with white voters, but he now trails Brewer by 8. At the same time he’s increased his lead with Hispanic voters from 20 points to 46.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/04/goddard-leads-in-arizona.html

And in the continuing attempt to appeal to the Latino voter Duncan Hunter (R-CA 52)

“Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens,” Hunter was asked. “I would have to, yes,” Hunter said. “… We simply cannot afford what we’re doing right now,” he said. “… It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It’s what’s in our souls. …”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/04/rep-duncan-hunter-backs-deporting-usborn-children-of-undocumented-immigrants.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I’m not sure I have seen the Republicans work so hard to alienate a segment of the voting population since they devised their Southern strategy.

In authoritarian states, yes, your papers are often required. However, are you really required, in most democratic nations, to be carrying your proof of citizenship around with you? Are officers required to ask for said proof of citizenship from anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally (or is the standard blanket applied to all laws about reasonable suspicion the sole level of effect)? Are officers explicitly mandated, by law, to arrest individuals who fail to have the proper documentation on them – not fail to have the proper documentation, but fail to have it ON THEM? Please provide links to such legislation if so.

The pool of voters the GOP has available to draw votes from is shrinking and shrinking. In 20 years it will consist of only a small number of old ticked off white guys.
.
While the minority polulation in this country is slowly becoming the majority the GOP is making sure to alienate every last one of them. Funny how they forget that at least the hispanic voters supported them for many years, especially with Bush’s victory. They can kiss that vote goodbye for the foreseeable future. Nice work!

Ok, we’re jumping through a few hundred hoops here. I think the biggest question I have is this: with kidnappings happening in just about any country, what in the world makes you think that the majority of those kidnappers are actually illegal immigrants? More likely, the kidnappers are guys who can legally cross the border but do so while bringing along a bunch of people who can’t.

Exactly, you beat me to it. They forget that the GOP once had strong support from hispanic voters.

300 down and 11,999,700 to go!
.
http://www.azfamily.com/news/Hundreds-seek-to-fill-vacant-positions-at-Pros-Ranch-Market-91880224.html
.

Mr jabaustian, now why would a liberal news ragazine in the same vein as the National Enquirer EVER publish anything which counteracts their liberal spin and regurgitation of Democrat talking points?
.
It just won’t happen in our lifetimes. The only way we can get TIME to change is to encourage our family and friends to avoid buying or purchasing anything related to TIME or TIME.com

freeinpa says it’s “principles”!

3xfire3 will be 91 years old….

So he is running! I thought so, sacred. I think that’s pretty sh!tty of you not to let the rest of us know!

Correct me if I am wrong(and I am certain you will), but it is my understanding that the violation just codified in Arizona is a “SECONDARY” violation…like the NJ seatbelt law used to be.
.
Another violation MUST be present and the primary focus of the inquiry by the police who can then ask for proper identification.

You have prohibition, aka the “war on drugs”, to blame for that. As long as Americans have strong demand the cartels will be a problem. Almost 30 years since Reagan gave us the “war on drugs” has there really been any progress? It really was a war on poor minorities which explains the discrepancy in sentancing between whites and minorities for drug sentences. A white kid in the suburbs gets caught smoking a joint and it is a slap on the wrist on the way to college. A minority gets caught with marijuana and they now have a record and can never get a respectable job again.
.
Prohibition during the 20′s turned common street crooks into organized crime more powerefull than municipal governements. The same has happened with drugs. Common street gangs have become cartels brazen enough to take on their own government in a billion dollar business. If the right cares so much about government intervention in our personal lives why would they support this policy? Why would they support the patriot act and policy of spying on american citizens without a warrant? Why would they support this Arizona law which american citizens who may look or sound foreign can not even leave their house to walk their children to school without having to prove they are citizens?
.
I will tell you why. They are hypocrites of the worst kind.

The liberal spin: it is an unlawful search and arrest
.
To law abiding Americans, the Arizona law is simply upholding the legal, again that’s LEGAL Federal Law for immigration.
.
To the spite and dismay of our lying, LYING Liberal far left extremists they make this law out to be nothing of what it says in the law to be. They spread fear to the hispanic community, most who cannot read English, to make it seem like this law will deport them even tho they are legally here.
.
They also even put fear into the lives of the illegals who are here and undocumented by saying they will stop and search you, ask for your papers without provacation or reason, just because you look like you might be an illegal from South America. Fully a LIE and mere hype from the left.
.
Why is it that on one hand liberals will scream and shout for the law to be abided by, then in the second breath they totally ignore the law and trample all over the constitution? It must be schizophrenia, has to be. Being TOTALLY NUTS is the only answer to the way they think.

Rusty and jb, TIME can lose money (if it is) to its hearts content so your Arizona-inspired boycott means squat. The parent company Time Warner’s serious cash flow comes from the cable biz, NOT the magazines. Look it up. Then again, if you’d do your homework like we “liberals” do, you’d already know it.

You are absolutely correct, justmy02cents. However, the liberals are ranting that it is some illegal search. A “Nazi-like” act against the American people.
.
Do you know what else is funny? Even if someone who is here illegally is stopped by chance by a policeman, the constitution does not protect that illegal at all. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS!!! THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY!!!
.
Have you ever been stopped by a policeman doing a road check for expired licenses? Expired inspections? Drunk driving? Is that also illegal now?

Hispanic voters are not much different from non-Hispanic voters, in their attitudes toward immigration.
.
Wrong again.
.
Asked if immigration was a good thing, Hispanics said yes by a 74-17 margin while non-Hispanic whites only said yes by 59-35 margin.
.
Hispanics were twice as likely as non-Hispanic whites to favor increases in immigration. Nearly five in ten non-Hispanic whites wanted decreases, compared to three in ten for Hispanics.
.
Since you have nothing factual to say, jbaustian, you can take your own advice to STFU.

Sorry, I’m not a conservative, so I’ll provide a link to my evidence:
.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28003/Hispanics-Views-Immigration-Unchanged-From-Last-Year.aspx
.
And a more recent set of studies by the Pew Hispanic Center here:
.
http://pewhispanic.org/topics/?TopicID=16

It sure saves a lot of time and effort if you can disenfranchise your opponents instead of winning them over to your side.

I agree with this. A very well thought out response.

Have you ever been stopped by a policeman doing a road check for expired licenses? Expired inspections? Drunk driving? Is that also illegal now?
.
No, but there are specific guidlines in place to assure that such roadblocks are indeed randomly applied otherwise they have been found to violate the 4th amendment. Officers are not allowed to select people who look guilty.

Forgottenlord:
.
Immigrants are already supposed to carry their papers on them.
.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf
.
From page 8 of this, it says under a section listing responsibilities,
.
“Carry proof of your permanent resident status at all times.”
.

(quote)In authoritarian states, yes, your papers are often required. However, are you really required, in most democratic nations, to be carrying your proof of citizenship around with you?… Are officers explicitly mandated, by law, to arrest individuals who fail to have the proper documentation on them – not fail to have the proper documentation, but fail to have it ON THEM? (end of quote)
.
I believe that typically, the necessary identification paper show who you are. If you are in France and you have a French ID, then it will identify you as a citizen or legal immigrant. If you have papers from some other country, then that would mean you are not a French citizen.
.
If you do not have papers, then yes, the police can take you to the station for further questioning.

Not sure that there has to be a concrete primary reason – just a reasonable suspicion of a violation.
.
I’m thinking that a lot of the worry may be that some will decide that they want to stop a driver, then deciding on a “plausible” reason for doing so.
.
For example, stopping someone because you couldn’t see for certain that they were wearing a seat belt would probably work.
.
What’s the chance that a charge for being here illegally would be thrown out because the police couldn’t have seen enough to make that initial determination in the first place? Highly doubtful…
.
It’s not the professional law enforcement that have the most potential for abuse of this. It’s the lightly-trained “local yokels” on the “ego trip”. If AZ is like Ky, the only way to beat the charge is to go to court.
.
Even if they weren’t convicted of being here illegally (and had the proper papers-just not with them), what’s the chance of being fined for “failure to retain proper documentation”?

“The whole “Nazi” thing might appeal to the lefties here and on CNN and MSNBC, but most people who actually care about this country reject the notion.”

.

Right, but when I ask you to register your weapon?

Okay, from that Gallup Poll:
“Based on what you have heard or read, do you approve or disapprove of the government’s recent efforts to deal with illegal immigration in the U.S.?”
.
Approve:
Non-Hispanic Whites: 32%
Hispanics: 37%
.
Disapprove:
Non-Hispanic Whites: 60%
Hispanics: 58%
.
Those are not big differences.
.
Here is what I said above:
“Hispanic voters are not much different from non-Hispanic voters, in their attitudes toward immigration.”
.
I should have said “illegal immigration” to make the statement more correct.

To law abiding Americans, the Arizona law is simply upholding the legal, again that’s LEGAL Federal Law for immigration.
>

Right that would be for white Americans who have no need to carry ” Papers”. What ever that is.

Here’s the controversial text:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Heres the whole document:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

Just in case anyopne prefers to know what they are talking about. BTW I was surprised to learn how many countries have National ID laws,

I do not get your point. Do illegal immigrants have different gun-ownership rights than citizens and legal residents?

apollyon07: what about American citizens? Am I breaking the law when I walk out of my house without my driver’s license (the only form of Photo ID I take with me)? Do I need my passport and birth certificate as well? The bill doesn’t limit itself to immigrants in general, it limits itself only to those “suspected” of being an illegal immigrant – which is ANYONE who the officer *thinks* might be an immigrant. That includes my in-laws who have heavy accents, are visible minorities, but are citizens who have lived here for almost 3 decades. (Ok, Canadian citizens, but work with me here). With exception to the time I was pulled over for speeding, I’ve never been asked by an officer to provide any identification – and guess what, if I didn’t have my license on me, I would’ve been provided 24hrs to get to a police station to show my license to them. Even if I fail to get it to them, I still only get a ticket written up that I can then contest in court. Even then, it wasn’t proof that I am legally allowed to live there, just legally allowed to operate that vehicle. The only reason they can arrest me at that point is if they have “reasonable suspicion” that I am not supposed to be behind that wheel. This law fundamentally changes that: if they don’t have their papers on them, you are MANDATED to arrest them on the spot. No “24 hrs”, no “show up in court”, nothing. You are arrested right then and there.
.
Let’s just poll this community here: has anyone here been stopped on the street and asked to prove they are legally allowed to be in whatever country they were in at the time?

OK Y’All….here is the law that was passed to the governor for signature….
.
seems like Arizona is well within the US Constitution and their rights to enact this.
.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_04-19-10_astransmittedtogovernor.doc.htm
.
.
here is the text:
.

House of Representatives
SB 1070
immigration; law enforcement; safe neighborhoods

(NOW: safe neighborhoods; immigration; law enforcement)

Sponsors: Senators Pearce R, Gray C, Gray L, et al.

DPA/SE Committee on Military Affairs and Public Safety

DPA
Caucus and COW

X
As Transmitted to the Governor

SB 1070 makes changes to laws relating to the enforcement on immigration laws, failure to carry an alien registration document, day laborers, harboring or transporting illegal aliens and employer sanctions.
History
8 U.S.C. § 1373(c) requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to respond to inquiries by federal, state, or local government agencies seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

Laws 2007, Ch. 279 enacted the Legal Arizona Workers Act (Act). The Act: expands aggravated taking the identity of another person or entity to include the intent to obtain employment; prohibits an employer from intentionally employing an unauthorized alien or knowingly employing an unauthorized alien; requires the Attorney General (AG) or county attorney to investigate complaints and classifies filing a false and frivolous complaint as a class 3 misdemeanor; provides for license suspension for the first violation; requires license revocation on a second violation during a probationary period; and after December 31, 2007, requires every employer to utilize E-Verify to verify employment eligibility. Laws 2008, Chapter 152 further amended the Act.

Provisions
Enforcement of Immigration Law

· Prohibits law enforcement officials and law enforcement agencies of this state or counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from restricting or limiting the enforcement of the federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

· Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

· Stipulates that if the person is arrested, the person’s immigration status must be determined before the person is released and must be verified with the federal government.

· Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.

· Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:

Ø A valid Arizona driver license.

Ø A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

Ø A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

Ø A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.

· Requires that if a person is convicted of any state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation imposed, ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must be immediately notified.

· Authorizes a law enforcement agency to securely transport an unlawfully present alien to a federal facility.

· Requires a law enforcement agency to obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an unlawfully present alien to a point of transfer that is outside of Arizona.

· Prohibits, except as provided in federal law, officials and agencies of counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, of any individual or exchanging that information with another governmental entity for the following official purposes:

Ø Determination of eligibility for any public benefit, service or license.

Ø Verification of any claim of legal domicile if legal domicile is required by law or judicial order.

Ø If the person is an alien, determination of the person’s compliance with federal registration laws.

Ø Pursuant to federal laws regarding communication between government agencies and federal immigration agencies.

· Stipulates that these provisions does not implement, authorize or establish and cannot be construed to implement authorize or establish the REAL ID Act of 2005, including the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).

· Allows a person who is a legal resident of this state to bring an action in superior court to challenge officials and agencies of the state, counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions that adopt or implement a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

· Requires the court to order any that a violating entity pays a civil penalty of at least $1,000 and not to exceed $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after it has been found to be violating these provisions.

· States that the court will collect the penalty and transmit the collected monies to the state Treasurer for deposit in the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) Fund.

· Authorizes the court to award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency that prevails in a case brought under these provisions.

· Indemnifies officers against actions brought under these provisions, except if the officer has been adjudged to have acted in bad faith.

· Stipulates that these provisions are to be implemented consistent with federal immigration law protecting the civil right of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens.

Willful Failure to Complete or Carry an Alien Registration Document

· Specifies that in addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) or 1306(a).

· Stipulates that the immigration status may be determined by:

Ø A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.

Ø ICE or CBP pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c).

· Prevents a person convicted of the new offense from being eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon, commutation of sentence, or release from confinement on any basis except for as authorized by the Director of the Arizona Department of Correction until the sentence imposed has been served or the person is eligible for release due to early release credits.

· Requires the court to order the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of:

Ø At least $500 for a first offense.

Ø Twice the amount the person was ordered to pay for the first offense if this is the second or subsequent offense.

· States that the court will collect the assessments and transmit the collected monies to the Department of Public Safety for deposit in a special sub-account of the account established for GIITEM.

· Stipulates that monies in the sub-account are subject to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail costs relating to illegal immigration.

· Stipulates that any record that relates to the immigration status of a person is admissible in any court without further foundation or testimony from a custodian of records if the record is certified as authentic by the government agency responsible for maintaining the record.

· Makes a first offense a class 1 misdemeanor.

· Increases the penalty to a class 3 felony if the person commits the offense while in possession of:

Ø A dangerous drug (A.R.S. § 13-3401).

Ø Precursor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine (A.R.S. § 13-3404.01).

Ø A deadly weapon (A.R.S. § 13-3101).

Ø A dangerous instrument (A.R.S. § 13-105).

Ø Property used for committing an act of terrorism (A.R.S. § 13-2308.01).

· Makes violations a class 4 felony if either:

Ø It is a second or subsequent violation.

Ø Within 60 days, the person has been removed from the U.S. either under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a or 8 U.S.C. § 1229c.

Unlawfully Picking up Passengers for Work

· Specifies that it is a class 1 misdemeanor for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location, if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.

· Specifies that it is a class 1 misdemeanor for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location, if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.

· Specifies that it is a class 1 misdemeanor for a person who is unlawfully present who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor.

· Defines solicit and unauthorized alien.

Unlawfully Transporting or Harboring Unlawful Aliens

· Stipulates that it is unlawful for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to:

Ø Transport or move an alien in a means of transportation, or attempt to do so, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is here unlawfully.

Ø Conceal, harbor or shield an alien, or attempt to, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is here unlawfully.

Ø Encourage or induce an alien to come to this state if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that doing so would be a violation of law.

· Specifies that a means of transportation used in a violation of these provisions is subject to mandatory vehicle immobilization or impoundment.

· Specifies that these provisions do not apply to a Child Protective Services worker acting in the worker’s official capacity or a person who is acting in the capacity of a first responder, an ambulance attendant or an emergency medial technician and is transporting or moving an alien in relation to emergency medial services.

· Stipulates that violators are guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor and subject to a fine of at least $1,000. However, a violation involving 10 or more illegal aliens is a class 6 felony and subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each alien involved.

· Requires a peace officer to immobilize or impound a person’s vehicle if the officer determines either that:

Ø In furtherance of the illegal presence of an alien and in violation of a criminal offense, the person is transporting or moving, or attempting to do so in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is here unlawfully.

Ø The person is concealing, harboring or shielding an alien in this state, or attempting to do so in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is here unlawfully.

Employer Sanctions

· Provides employers with the affirmative defense that they were entrapped, but they must admit the substantial elements of the violation.

· Stipulates that the employer has the burden of proof proving the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

Ø The idea of committing the violation started with the officer or their agents.

Ø The officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

Ø The employer was not predisposed to commit the violation before the law enforcement officer or agents urged and induced the employer to do so.

· Stipulates that an employer is not entrapped if the employer was predisposed to violate the law and law enforcement merely provided the employer with the opportunity. Additionally, it is not entrapment for law enforcement to use a ruse or to conceal their identity.

· Requires employers to keep a record of the employment verification from E-verify for the duration of an employee’s employment, or three years, whichever is longer.

Miscellaneous

· Authorizes peace officers, in the enforcement of human smuggling laws, to lawfully stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.

· Authorizes a peace officer to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.

· Establishes the GIITEM fund (fund) and directs monies collected from penalties resulting from policies limiting the enforcement of federal immigration law to the fund.

· Requires the Arizona Department of Public Safety to administer the fund, which is subject to legislative appropriation and is to be used for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement for costs relating to illegal immigration.

· Contains intent and severability, implementation and construction clauses.

· Specifies that this act may be cited as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”

· Makes technical and conforming changes.

·

·

· ———- DOCUMENT FOOTER ———

· Forty-ninth Legislature

· Second Regular Session 5 April 19, 2010

·

· ———- DOCUMENT FOOTER ———

©2007 Arizona State Legislature. privacy statment

forgottenlord@2.7
.
YES.
.
in Italy and in Panama
.
On each occasion, I produced my passport and the authorities were satisfied.
.
NBD

(quote)In another context I once wrote this:

That is of course why Constitutional guarantees are necessary, because they run directly counter to human nature especially in times of fear. As I’ve said before, if the temptation to torture weren’t common then the freedom from self-incrimination wouldn’t be necessary to enunciate. If the temptation to railroad criminals weren’t common then the right to a jury trial wouldn’t have been mentioned. Each of our Constitutional guarantees stands directly in the path of the easy way out. That’s why they are there. (end of quote)
.
The Constitution does two basic things: it identifies specific rights belonging to the people, and it lists the powers of the government.
.
Some rights belong to everyone — citizens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants; you cannot kill, rob, or rape an illegal immigrant and claim immunity from prosecution.
.
Some rights belong only to citizens; only citizens can vote, only citizens can hold public office or sit on juries.
.
In the current discussion regarding illegal immigration, the federal government has created certain laws which are constitutionally valid. Immigrants may not enter the country illegally, they may not work here illegally, they are not officially a part of our society. This is fairly straightforward.
.
The problem is that the laws were created but not enforced. The problem is most acute along the southern border, but there are illegal immigrants in every state and many of them do not speak a word of Spanish. They come from Africa and China and Russia; they come here on tourist visas and disappear into the underground economy.
.
Where the problem is most acute, where the federal government is not serious about solving the problem, then the people are right to have their elected state officials do something about it.
.
I hear many complaints about the legal action taken by Arizona. If, somehow, the law is overturned, do the people of Arizona have any assurance that the problem will be fixed by the feds? The people have spoken; demonizing them, their state legislature, and their state government will not make the problem disappear.

Paul,
.
An Arizona police officer CANNOT just stop you because you look Mexican, he/she MUST have a lawful reason to interrogate you and THEN he/she can REQUIRE your status as a legal resident or citizen.
.
So if you look Mexican or Guatamalan….make sure your tail-lights are working ….because if they are NOT, you can be legally stopped and then LEGALLY asked to prove your status..
.
I hope ALL of the southern and northern border states enact the same legislation to address their local/state problems with illegal workers and residents.

Another matter being completely lost in this fake concern for illegal’s rights is that this law makes major changes to the police policy needed to deal with “coyotes” who, by definition are predators on the illegal communities on both sides of the border….
.
these people are human traffikers of the worst kind…
.
one would think that attempting to put an end to this heinous practice would be applauded by the liberals as a step in the right (pun intended) direction….
.
unfortunately they CANNOTpast what CNN, the talking heads, and MSNBC “told” them about this law.

That sounds tough but fair. Thanks, justmy02cents
.
I had a little chuckle out of the agency that receives fines collected as a result of enforcing this bill — the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) Fund.
.
GIITEM — get it?

”
I hope ALL of the southern and northern border states enact the same legislation to address their local/state problems with illegal workers and residents.”
.
Canada has had a problem with Americans coming in illegally, not the other way around.

“Have you ever been stopped by a policeman doing a road check for expired licenses? Expired inspections? Drunk driving? Is that also illegal now?”
.
The question is, do police currently have the power to pull you over for just about any pretext they can dream up. Yes they do.
.
And now, if you have the wrong color skin and/or your English isn’t very good and/or your clothes look too shabby and/or they just don’t like your look, etc., etc., they can arrest, handcuff and take you to jail even if you committed no crime at all. One more step in the march toward a police state and “conservatives” thing it’s all just hunky-dory (RWA, anyone?). Though I’m sure it has nothing do do with the *cough* not-white *cough* skin-color of the people they presume will be the victims.

“Why go after the illegals – go after the people who are hiring them.”

Why go after illegals?? Maybe because they are illegals and thus law breakers.

How do you target businesses that hire them? Do you disrupt every firm that hires Hispanics? Would that not be profiling? Did the Obama administration order ICE to stop these raids?

In effect we would be transferring the job of government to employers. A job that the government should be doing instead of worrying if my kid is getting a toy with his happy meal.

“· Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.”
.
This does not appear to mean that this is a secondary issue.
.
It appears to mean that is a person with an accent and/or foreign in appearance is in public they may be required to present identification.
.
“Indemnifies officers against actions brought under these provisions, except if the officer has been adjudged to have acted in bad faith.”
.
So, even if it is interpreted as something to be done if the undocumented worker does something else to get attention, the police department can not be sued for damages unless it is proven to be “in bad faith” which is a huge hurdle.
.
If you want to see a town where very highly paid police officers (about $100k/yr for rookies) will pull you over for no known reason, my hometown 40 miles Northeast of NYC enforces being black or Latino in public or, being a clean cut, legally licensed teenager driving a car as a grounds for getting pulled over.
.
(When I was a clean shaven, short haired teenager driving a station wagon I got pulled over, asked where I was going and, when I asked why I was pulled over he replied while handing my license and registration back “I just wanted to know where you were going.” No ticket for being a white teenager in public, but, in that Republican town I was originally from, their working on a way to make that an offense, too.)

It is a myth that the 10 thousand illegals that cross the Mexican border every day are poor. Border patrol agents are becoming wealthy because illegals carrying large sums of money with them are often apprehended. Only a mentally ill Mexican would dare cross the US border illegally without a skill. Most are construction workers or auto mechanics and have a job waiting for them. They seldom work for less than minimum wages, and pay no taxes. Almost none are harvest workers.

“. One more step in the march toward a police state”

It is typical of the left to believe that government carrying out the laws of this country to keep illegals out is a police state. But to have the government order everyone in the country to buy health insurance whether they want to or not or face penalties is just dandy.

You got to love liberals who once again show they have a preference over lawbreaking non-citizens and hate their own fellow citizens.

From page 9 of “Welcome to the United States — A Guide for New Immigrants”
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf
.
(quote)As a permanent resident,you have the right to:
• Live and work permanently anywhere in the U.S.
• Apply to become a U.S.citizen once you are eligible.
• Request visas for your husband or wife and unmar-
ried children to live in the U.S.
• Get Social Security,Supplemental Security Income,
and Medicare benefits,if you are eligible.
• Own property in the U.S.
• Apply for a driver’s license in your state or territory.
• Leave and return to the U.S.under certain conditions.
• Attend public school and college.
.
As a permanent resident,it is your responsibility to:
• Obey all federal,state,and local laws.
• Pay federal,state,and local income taxes.
• Register with the Selective Service (U.S.Armed
Forces),if you are a male between ages 18 and 26.
See page 11 for instructions.
• Maintain your immigration status.
• Carry proof of your permanent resident status at all
times.
• Change your address online or provide it in writing
to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
within 10 days of each time you move.See page 12
for instructions. (end of quote)
.
Please take note of #5 in the list of responsiblities for permanent residents: “Carry proof of your permanent resident status at all times. ”
.
If you do not do this, you are already in violation of federal requirements. The Arizona law does not impose any new burden on legal residents.

In many states, the only way Democrats can win is by committing voter fraud — either by counting absentee ballots from dead people, or not requiring a photo ID when registering or voting, or encouraging illegal immigrants to register and vote.

More unadulterated bs from you. Any chance that you can substantiate your bs? I can certainly substantiate the wealth of illegal activity by Republicans in recent years — voter caging, illegal purging of voter registration rolls, etc. That’s the only way they managed to “win” the 2000 and 2004 elections.

J.
.
“If you do not do this, you are already in violation of federal requirements. The Arizona law does not impose any new burden on legal residents.”
.
J walking is an offense.
.
The question is what is crossing a border and working the moral equivalent to? Is is equivalent to not wearing a seat belt? Is it equivalent to committing murder?
.
The point is, instead of a minor fine as one would expect if they do not look like or sound like they are from another country, they will be held in custody.
.
You’ve given the police not only a license to, but an order to harass people who look or sound foreign to them on what seems to be a totally subjective ground.
.
Baustian?
.
That’s a French sounding name to me! Hand over your papers! Don’t have them? In jail for you French boy!

“It is typical of the left to believe that government carrying out the laws of this country to keep illegals out is a police state. But to have the government order everyone in the country to buy health insurance whether they want to or not or face penalties is just dandy.
.
“… carrying out the laws of this country…” that is already being worked on by ICE at the Mexican border, the Canadian border and every port and air port in America. This is about harassing people who are already here a huge majority of who are legal.
.
So it is about harassing law abiding residents.
.
“…But to have the government order everyone in the country to buy health insurance whether they want to or not or face penalties…”
.
“.. order everyone in the country to buy health insurance..”
.
Except for the self employed, it is paid for by the employer.
.
“…or not or face penalties…”
.
No, or their employer will not get the tax break.
.
Let’s translate your statement into English:
.
“It is typical of the left to believe that government harassing law abiding residents. But to have the government give a tax break to employers who provide health insurance is just dandy.”
.
How about this:
.
It is typical of the right to talk about the sky is falling when employers will have to provide health insurance to their employees to get a tax break, but, when the government is requiring police to harass lawful residents, it is just dandy.
.
That would make sense.

Even if someone who is here illegally is stopped by chance by a policeman, the constitution does not protect that illegal at all. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS!!! THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY!!!

rustyblogwhore, your “understanding” of the rule of law is absolutely nil. You claim to know the Constitution but you obviously haven’t a clue .
..
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm
..
http://www.sheriff-okaloosa.org/Immigration/Do%20Illegal%20Aliens%20Have%20Constitutional%20Rights.pdf

“…to have the government order everyone in the country to buy health insurance whether they want to or not or face penalties is just dandy…
.
Everyone is going to get sick eventually. Not everyone will be tased, shackled, fingerprinted, jailed and fined (had their car impounded, lost a job, etc.) for being brown and without their papers. Interesting preference.

Unfortunately while Federal law requires permanent residents to carry their green cards, this law basically requires all citizens to carry passports. After all, you can’t expect police to know the difference until they’ve demanded an ID, and a DL doesn’t prove your a citizen.

The law certainly smells of racial profiling. In my opinion, it is also the wrong approch. Why go after the illegals – go after the people who are hiring them. If they can’t find jobs here they won’t stay. The bigger problem is Mexico itself. If there were jobs there, there would be no need for the illegals who are lookng for work to cross the border. There is always the question, are they taking jobs Americans want but at lower wages? Its kinda like internal outsourcing. Lots of questions, few answers.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/04/28/boycotting-arizona/?replytocom=159987#respond#ixzz0mSHysm1w

Why go after illegals? Umm, maybe because they’re breaking the law? They come to U.S. for many reasons; better paying jobs, better life, safer, etc. I know alot of them that work in the U.S. to send money back home and eventually move back there.

True, they need to crack down on employers. But when the federal government isn’t doing enough to handle the issue, the state needs leagal means to do it. That’s what this law does. I worked at a restaurant where the whole back of house was illegal, they used other people’s info.

If they are here legally, they don’t have anything to worry about do they? It’s silly to say people can’t produce an id of some kind, and this law specifically states that many can be used.

Ø A valid Arizona driver license.

Ø A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

Ø A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

Ø A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/04/28/boycotting-arizona/?replytocom=159987#respond#ixzz0mSLshiuV

And if you are here legally you have to carry your green card at all times.

“The law certainly smells of racial profiling.” I missed the race part in this bill. Did I read it wrong?

I can’t remember… I know some states gave driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, or talked about doing so, but then Homeland Security said they would not be accepted when boarding commercial air flights. So what happened?
.
I know, based on the link above, that legal residents can get a DL. If they stop being legal, if they overstay their visas, they will still have the DL. But still, if you have a DL, that’s almost always an indication that you’re legal.
.
If you don’t have a DL, don’t have another state-issued ID card, don’t have a passport, and don’t have a green card… then you’d better speak passably good English. Or you will be taken down to the station until things can get sorted out.

It would be great to live in a society where you could tell a cop to go to hell if he asked you for ID. I suspect that few if any of the men who signed up to fight in the Civil War, or even in WWI, had any kind of ID or were asked to provide any.
.
By the time of WWII, almost everyone had a Social Security card. And probably most states had some kind of licensing system for drivers. But for someone without any ID, providing reasonable answers to a few questions probably satisfied most any policeman who bothered to ask.
.
There was a time when passports were not required for immigrants to the US. I am not sure when this changed. But even after that, the border with Mexico was wide open and people could cross freely without passing through any checkpoints. I don’t think this was that many decades ago.
.
So what has changed? A lot may be the result of a massive expansion of the welfare state. You can have a welfare state or you can have unlimited immigration, but you can’t have both. You can’t have a heavily unionized workforce, and at the same time an uncontrolled influx of new workers.
.
For some reason it is the Democrats who want unlimited immigration AND a generous welfare state. Yet they don’t recognize the contradiction between these two positions. Additionally, it is the unions which oppose free trade, and union workers who are strongly opposed to both legal and illegal immigration — yet the union leaders seem supportive of illegal immigration. The rank-and-file know something that their leaders do not know — it may be one more reason for the declining numbers of union members except for public employee unions.
.
I am not opposed to immigration. I think the US should encourage MORE immigration, legal immigration, from Mexico, elsewhere in Latin America, Asia, and elsewhere. More immigrants who come here to work, to start new businesses, to create new jobs.
.
My own state, which I will not name, would benefit greatly from a gradual immigration of about 200,000 Chinese or Vietnamese. Many of our small towns have declining populations, are losing their small businesses, and schools are closing because there are not enough children to justify keeping them open. But we do not need unskilled illegal laborers who will end up on welfare rolls after their temporary jobs run out.

It is unfortunate that most people who rail against the idea of showing proper documents to verify one’s legal right to be in the US are so uninformed. There is a federal statute on the books for many years that requires ALL non citizen legal residents of the US to carry their ‘green card’ on their person AT ALL TIMES and to make it available to proper authorities on request. My my…I’ll bet all you leftist wingnuts were unaware of that. But then again, you are dumb kool aid drinkers who believe everything you read in the lame stream media. By the way, if you are in any country in the EU beyond the normal tourist stay, you are required by law to carry your US passport with a current visa on your person at all times. So get over it.

Paul Dirks
Actually in the state of AZ, proof of citzenship is required to obtain a drivers license so merely presenting an AZ DL to a police officer is sufficient evidence. No passport required as you assert.

Paul Dirks,
As stated previously (and as evidenced in the law as it is written) an Arizona issued drivers license is sufficient evidence of proper documentation. You don’t have to carry a passport in AZ.

First of all, any American traveling abroad must have a passport — and all passport applications require proof of birth. So, yes, when you are stopped abroad and asked for your passport, you are also showing proof of citizenship.

Second, you can only be stopped if you either have, or are suspected of, breaking a law. At that point you are asked for either your driver’s license or state identification. Not having those, then an officer will begin to inquire about any other paperwork you might have. They would also then ask questions, like, where you come from, where you were born, etc. So, you will not just casually be stopped and asked for proof of citizenship. That is ridiculous.

Since 9/11, I believe most states passed legislation that requires proof of citizenship whenever you apply for an original and/or renewal of either driver’s licenses or state identification cards.

In West Virginia, I know this to be the case, and not just for driver’s licenses and state identification cards, but also for voter registration and when you want to purchase a handgun.

I think that the racial profiling issue is being overplayed, frankly.

When 90% of your illegal immigration concerns are from immigrants from Mexico, then it is safe to assume (I know, I know!) that you are looking at the Mexican population when you enforce this law. It wouldn’t make much sense to look for Chinese or Canadian or Vietnamese illegal immigrants in Arizona. I mean, come on, at some point we need to use a little common sense when looking at this Arizona law.

And most people I know carry some form of identification on them when they leave their house. Legal immigrants are required by law to carry their immigration papers on them at all times anyway.

So, the only people who should worry about the impact of this law would be those who are here illegally. And, surprise! That is just what this law is trying to do, round up and deport illegals.

I have come to a couple of conclusions.. first next time I am stopped for a road side check I am going to start yelling RACIST.. as far as I am concerned those check points are ILLEGAL against my 4th amendment rights and they are profiling me as a drunk who has no drivers license, or insurance and don’t wear my seat belt.. all of which are untrue..
Next I just went out an bought 5 cases of AZ ice tea BTW: which is made in NY

I am now on my way to shop in AZ via the internet to support their law.. and I will be sending money to Politicians who are running in AZ who also support the law..

The only reason I won’t be going to the CUBS games is I’m a WHITE SOCKS FAN.. well two reasons I don’t go into CHICAGO since I moved out 5 years ago.. don’t do business in Sanctuary cities..

BEFORE you all call me racist.. we are a diverse family plenty of LEGAL MEXICANS all law abiding citizens who DID NOT BREAK INTO THIS COUNTRY AND DEMAND OUR GOVERNMENT PROVIDE FOR THEM..

I found this outline of a proposal to deal with illegal immigration. ” … people who are in America illegally have a responsibility — to pay their back taxes and admit responsibility for breaking the law, pay a penalty, learn English, pass criminal background checks, and get right with the law — or face removal — before they can get in line and eventually earn their citizenship.” Sounds reasonable to me.