Comments


  • N45BA, maybe you should read and find out why Asian Americans are considered the "perfect minority"? And do explain who are these great people that make this country so great? And one example, I could mention so many examples that happen everyday in the Midwest and Long Island NY and for that matter, West Texas. If we dont point this out, it will continue my friend. Nazis might be an extreme term but sometimes, you have the raise the red flag and let people know what is going on. And yes, I am making sure that the place where I live is better, just that it might not be your better. To you might it be encroachment and disturb your "better.".

    May 2, 2010 at 3:19 p.m.

  • White nazis?? That's racist right there.............hypocrite. Where the hell is Al Sharpto........umm........LULA.....crap........who the heck do we have to listen to our whining.....

    May 2, 2010 at 11:48 a.m.

  • The "reaction" to the AZ law is one of "I'm hispanic and these are my brothers"! These brothers are breaking the law, costing this country untold billions in education costs, medical costs, welfare costs and on and on. By what right does any advocate think it's ok to break the law and just come into the country? Try that in Mexico and see what their law says! The AZ law is no different that the existing Federal Law. Police can only have LAWFUL contact before asking for identification which all police have to do now in every state. If you drive you are suppose to carry a license, that's a law in the whole country. You are suppose to be able to identify yourself if police make lawful contact with you, that a law in every state. If your a legal immigrant and not yet a citizen you are suppose to carry your green card, that's the law everywhere. People have had it with illegals telling this country what our laws should be and it's time that we secured our borders and start finding out just who is entering this country. Maybe Congress and the President will get the message finally!

    May 2, 2010 at 10:28 a.m.

  • Here is a little story about profiling. This happened in Lincoln, NE. Latino family moving from CA to somewhere on the east coast. Right outside Lincoln, van( favorite vehicle of Mexicans, right behind old suburbans, talk about profiling) rolls over and family gets ejected from the vehicle. Wife and two kids get killed, husband is detained in jail until someone could prove that he was here legally. Just in case you Perry Mason's fan come up with the question, it was in the middle on a winter storm and when the vehicle rolled over, along with the people being ejected, so was this guy's wallet and it took a few days to be found. He spent some time in jail, while his family laid dead at the hospital. Did I mention that they were Latinos and the only reason he was kept in jail was because they thought that he was an illegal alien. Ok, some of you might say, that is an extreme, well, when I was in NE, guess who was the last person that they would help in Bestbuy? I had to follow them "employees" and ask them to help me in order to get something. I been serving this country for over 20 years and I been in a lot of countries. We are not Mexico, we are not Korea. If you are going to stop me because you think I am an illegal, you better be prepare to stop whites for being Nazis. This is not about crime, for as Mike stated, illegal aliens are not known for committing, they fear the cops. Those people committing the crimes are part of drug cartels and no matter what, they will get the drugs into this country. I just dont know how they are planning to implement this law. Kind of funny that even Mr. Tancredo thinks that this law is a bit too extreme. I almost felt out of my chair when I read that, MR. TANCREDO? Maybe because he looks Mexican, but Mr Tancredo actually said “I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over,” This time, I will side with Mike, besides this being immoral it does go against the Constitution, either you give up all of your rights or you dont. Dont cherry pick, because what you consider important might not be important for those who are here to look out for us.

    May 1, 2010 at 10:23 p.m.

  • Austin Chief of Police Art Acevedo Slams Arizona Immigration Law

    http://www.statesman.com/opinion/insi...

    "Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and her legislative colleagues, in effect, killed community policing in the state when she signed Senate Bill 1070 into law, creating an environment where U.S. citizens and legal residents will be treated as criminals by law enforcement personnel based primarily upon the color of their skin."

    Read the article, it's pretty damning of this law and even has some interesting comments about that clown of a Sheriff in Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpai.

    May 1, 2010 at 5:28 p.m.

  • Good post Mike,

    You even allowed wiggle room by saying, "We have several laws that employers should follow", but I agree with your analyzes in the end "cheap labor".

    IMO, the whole idea behind this Arizona legislation was to wake up the federal government to the fact that federal laws are not being enforced as written. In fact to force the federal government to enforce the federal laws already on the books.

    If that is/was the case, I can say that Arizona succeeded.

    I know, one party or the other doesn't want to tackle "comprehensive immigration", but why would a bill have to encompass all areas of immigration at the same time?

    The most pressing need at this time is border security especially in Arizona, but also in other border states. Start with border security, effectively enforce the federal laws already in place, including employer sanctions, then worry about the path to citizenship and work visas latter.

    When thousands of Mexican citizens are being killed and intimidated in close proximity to the Mexico/US border, a outright war in Mexico to be truthful about it, border security should be the top priority.

    May 1, 2010 at 4:14 p.m.

  • The President has votes to lose, as does anyone running for office in who is not on the right side of this.
    I still say that unless someone has something in this personally, they should applaud any action that does something to curtail illegal entry.
    Unfortunately, it will do little more than make those that don't want to get caught, move to another location. Unless there are federal laws passed as a whole, it is little more than fluff.
    It does, however, bring the problem to the forefront, which is a good thing.

    May 1, 2010 at 4:11 p.m.

  • Uh..., do affiliated drug lords on this side of the border have to file the "W4, I-9" forms? Just wondering, because that's got to stop the criminals entering this country illegally dead in their tracks. Forms, we don't need no stinking forms!

    May 1, 2010 at 4:05 p.m.

  • "The only people who do not "get", or want, this law are the ones that have something to hide, or sympathize with someone they know.
    That statement only allows two answers, and if you don't agree with the poster then you are not in your right mind.

    The president of the United States does not have anything to hide, and I seriously doubt he has anyone in Arizona that he sympathizes with. Same here. The legislation the governor governor of Arizona signed had to be redone, so it did have some flaws. Atty. general Eric holder may challenge the legislation as being unconstitutional. This law was passed by conservative republicans just to appease their constituents; not really caring what impact ,racial profiling would produce. For the third time, the sheriff of Tucson Arizona does not agree with this law; he said it was unnecessary. Whoever heard of a law that allows citizens to sue local law enforcement; if they thought they were not doing enough in curbing illegal immigration. That leaves it open for vigilante justice. Illegal immigration should be left to the Federal government for the most part but there's nothing wrong with local law enforcement helping.

    A complaint and an opinion that the law is just knee-jerk legislation that will not work are two different things. I don't think black people should have been racially profiled in New Jersey nor Muslims at the airports but they were, now United States citizens in Arizona may be. I'm consistent when it comes to racial profiling. I know what the Arizona law says but if they wouldn't have been so defensive about the wording they would have let the first draft as is....There was already a federal law prohibiting racial profiling.

    As I understand it, not all states require a proof of birth to obtain a driver's license; so the persons of said states visiting in Arizona would be required to show another document other than a driver's license to show proof of citizenship; if stopped. Just because I probably will not be going to Arizona, doesn't mean I can't think this legislation is overkill...........It's called a different opinion.

    We have several laws that employers should follow; such as a form W4, I-9(two forms of identification) and when they file their state quarterly payroll report; any erroneous security number will be flagged;thus making that the first step toward deportation. I suspect employers are not complying because they want cheap labor. ICE should make more raids.

    This is just another example of " either you are with me or you are against me" no room for discussion, solution, or compromise just blind obedience. Then again what do I know, I was against the Patriot Act and domestic warrantless surveillance because they were all knee-jerk solutions created it in an atmosphere of fear...IMO

    I'm not going to lose any sleep over the legislation, I will not protest, but I just wanted to make clear not everyone subscribes to"neither or."

    May 1, 2010 at 3:36 p.m.

  • The only people who do not "get", or want, this law are the ones that have something to hide, or sympathize with someone they know.
    Who in their right mind doesn't understand why this is needed? All of these people who are complaining would be the first to support a law if it was against another set of illegal immigrants that were taking their jobs away from them.

    May 1, 2010 at 12:11 p.m.

  • Does anyone remember what these self-proclaimed "Patriotic Americans" behind this law do to MLK Day?
    While some may have sincere feeling about immigration control, these people's ranks are full of racist willing to relegate Arizona’s Hispanic population to second class status.
    How many of you men would defend Black or Hispanic police officer demand proof of citizenship from your white daughter or mother?

    May 1, 2010 at 9:58 a.m.

  • "a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law."

    So that eliminates the argument that a person can be stopped for just driving down the road.

    If the officer has "reasonable suspicion", a person would have to violate a driving, or I guess pedestrian law, ( Jay walking), to be stopped and said persons legal status determined not just because a officer "wants to".

    How many officers want to spend the rest of their shift doing paperwork instead of out on the street?

    Never mind, the truly lazy officers will probably rather spend time in the station instead of out on the street. But I am sure they are the officers that their fellow officers DON'T want on the street anyway.

    April 30, 2010 at 5:33 p.m.

  • Lol...National ID is Obama agenda...actually One of the issues most debated about the Real ID act was its addition to the larger "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act."

    "Real ID was stuffed into the supplemental appropriations bill for Hurricane Katrina and the troops in Iraq, so of course we had to vote for the bill," said Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, yesterday. "But we had no chance to amend it -- no debate, no hearing, and no consideration of other alternatives. And now we impose on the states an $11 billion unfunded mandate.

    http://www.govtech.com/gt/104173

    April 30, 2010 at 4:52 p.m.

  • annonyme
    We have several checkpoints inside the United States and to my knowledge no one disapproves. I don't know anyone that minds showing their driver's license to police officers if they are being questioned or showing proof of insurance and a license if they are stopped for a traffic violation. Different countries have different laws but this is about the state of Arizona.

    In 90 days or less, a person will be detained and sent to for processing at a immigration detention center if they cannot show proof of citizenship in the state of Arizona.

    Legion357

    Thanks for info but I sure wish they would take out the part where citizens can sue local law enforcement and the " reasonable suspicion" clause.... States have have always worked hand in hand with the Feds, so I still think that this legislation is not necessary but with some more modifications it will be a duplication of the Federal law.....:-)

    We have doubled the amount of DEA and border agents in the troublesome areas and Janet Napolitano imposed some tough sanctions on the employers that hired the illegal immigrants; so steps have been taken but until we overhaul our illegal immigration reform policy; more states will follow suit to shed light on the subjec,t or take revenge...IMO

    April 30, 2010 at 4:21 p.m.

  • PHOENIX -- Arizona lawmakers have approved several changes to the recently passed sweeping law targeting illegal immigration.

    Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."

    Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

    A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

    The follow-on legislation approved Thursday also would change the law to specify that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law.

    Brewer's spokesman said that makes it clear that police cannnot question people just on the suspicion they're illegal immigrants.

    http://www.abc15.com/content/news/pho...

    Arizona has acted quickly to address the most controversial part of the bill/law , imo.

    April 30, 2010 at 4:02 p.m.

  • Silly me, I kind of listen to professionals such as the Sheriff of Tucson Arizona, Clarence Dupnik, who calls the new law racist, disgusting, and unnecessary but what does he know; he just patrols that border area every day. He has been quoted as saying :

    1. The new immigration law would allow citizens to sue law enforcement if they don't think they are enforcing the new law. He went on to say that if a 9/11 call was made to his office saying that 11 Hispanics were congregating at a local store; he would be forced to send a car(s) to investigate or he could be subject to a lawsuit.
    2. The sheriff said his deputies already arrest illegal immigrants on a daily basis but if he were to emphasize that illegal immigration would be the priority; his officers would obey, and other crimes not related to illegal immigration would go by the wayside.
    3. The Sheriff took credit for saving the taxpayers of Tucson, Arizona the extra money it would take to house, process. feed, and tend to the medical needs of those arrested, by taking them straight to the border patrol.

    Illegal immigration is down by 15% because of our slow economy; it would be an ideal time for Comprehensive Immigration Reform instead of letting the states comes up with legislation that will lead to expensive lawsuits. Senators Lindsay Graham, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman have a plan ready to go that will include a biometric Social Security card that cannot be duplicated.

    We can try all these band aid (knee-jerk) laws that have not worked; or we can go to the heart of matter, (employment and special interest) and start using the tools like E-verify. Homeland Security gets their data from our outdated Social Security database that was responsible for about 200 Americans that were detained processed and imprisoned.

    I bet the Civil libertarians will come out of the woodwork when some congressmen comes up with the idea of a national ID card.....

    April 30, 2010 at 3:11 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    April 30, 2010 at 2:01 p.m.

  • I was driving a silver or grey Ford Escort, the way I got it from the dealership. No tinted windows, or anything. My aptitude for always having something to say, stems from always thinking and using my mind to get me out of potential problems.

    The alternative, is allowing idiots to get away with taking advantage of me, uh, no thanks? Apparently, some people think my place is somewhere near, sit down and shut up,…is there oxygen up on that high horse mountain that you live, Zeus?

    Personally, this “Vato” wasn’t born to be anyone’s whipping boy; I will give as good as I get.

    Unfortunately, for those against me, I fight using my mind, and don’t rely on winning one argument, to when a debate. I never quit and I never give up, and no matter how many years it takes I will win; because for me, it’s about creating solutions not problems.

    To create problems, doesn’t require much intelligence; creating solutions requires actually understanding problems and their relationship to everything that they effect.

    If only legislators in Arizona put that much effort into creating laws, then they would offer more solutions than problems they create.

    Unlike some people, I don’t fear countering opinions, so stand up and speak out. Given my attitude, does anyone really think my opponents have a chance? I’ve been fighting my whole life, I even came into this world fighting; because an umbilical cord was wrapped around my neck and I have a genetic disease, that was suppose to end my life 15 years back.

    Oh, by the way, I now drive a Chevy Aveo, I’m a fiscal conservative, which means I try to cut waste in my own life. I grew up around Lowrider’s, Bikers, and other automotive enthusiast; there is nothing wrong with it, if you take care of your responsibilities first.

    It’s because of those automotive eccentric enthusiast, that many people have jobs, fore those idiots that have a problem with it. Many of those employed are hard working Rednecks, that work in the plants and shops, that make the stuff idiots ridicule. So, if anything, you want more people with money engaged in purchasing such things; it’s called an economy. People have jobs, because other people buy stuff, idiots; apparently the world is full of idiots!

    Normally I wouldn’t be so harsh, but Arizona has me saying, “come on, again?”

    April 30, 2010 at 1:21 p.m.

  • Let's see what exactly Marco Rubio, R Florida senatorial candidate actually said on the new Arizona law since the DNC national news likes to use his words. From Hannity's show.....

    RUBIO:" Yes. There's two separate issues. Number one is I don't blame the people of Arizona for what they've done. I was there a month and a half ago. I saw the people are afraid of the kidnapping and the horrible crimes that are happening. And this was a matter of time before something like this happened because the federal government has failed.

    So Arizona has the right to do this, I understand why they're doing it. I don't blame them for doing it. I just don't think it's the best solution. I think the best solution to this problem is for the federal government to do its job. Is to finally — this is a wake-up call to finally take this issue seriously.

    And here's my biggest fear. You're starting to see it happen already. This administration is going to try and use this as an excuse to force an amnesty bill down our throats which I'm not for.

    So I don't blame Arizona for what they're doing. It's easy to sit back and criticize them when someone is in an air conditioned studio —

    HANNITY: Yes.

    RUBIO: — in New York or somewhere else. They've got to do what they think is right for Arizona. But the best solution to this problem is for the federal government to do its job.

    HANNITY: What did you mean when you said it could unreasonably single out people who are here legally including American citizens? When you said that initial statement, because —

    RUBIO: Right.

    HANNITY: As you probably know, there's been a lot of discussion about those comments. And — because in particularly, this bill —

    RUBIO: Sure.

    HANNITY: — specifically says you cannot racially profile. So what do you mean by that?

    RUBIO: I think as time goes —

    HANNITY: Go ahead.

    RUBIO: Well, I think as time goes on, you're going to hear stories about people that have been in this country for a long time and they got pulled over and they're going to claim it was because somebody thought they might had been illegal. And they're going to be upset about it.

    It's an unintended consequence. It's not why the law was passed. And it's why I don't think it's the ideal way to deal with that. I think the ideal way to deal with it is to have border security so you don't have this violence pouring over the border.

    But these are two separate issues. What Arizona did, they have a right to do. And I don't blame them for doing what they did because they have to live with this stuff. I'm saying that as a U.S. Senate candidate I want the federal government to take this seriously, to secure that border so that these crimes no longer cross over from Arizona."

    April 30, 2010 at 11:57 a.m.

  • LOL @ holein1

    April 30, 2010 at 10:55 a.m.

  • Yes sir. Pimping one's POS knows no racial boundaries, only intellectual boundaries.

    April 30, 2010 at 10:52 a.m.

  • I still find myself amused with the comments of some who in other areas of policy are vehemently against bestowing more power to law enforcement and government in general yet are whooping for joy over this legislation.

    The simple fact of this law is that it gives law enforcement more power. Power, as we all know, comes with great responsibility, but it seems that just because the targets of this bill are illegal immigrants some people have thrown caution to the wind and applauded this move without questioning certain aspects of the bill - especially those that mention vague, open to interpretation expressions such as "reasonable suspicion".

    All I would say is be careful what you wish for because those "rights of the individual" that many on here tout and firmly believe are sacrosanct can easily be eroded away under the guise of fear-based law making.

    April 30, 2010 at 10:13 a.m.

  • anon, the ones I have seen were guarded by men with machine guns.

    April 30, 2010 at 9:59 a.m.

  • There are tons of checkpoints in Mexico that ask for identification. Why is that okay, but we can't ask for proof of citizenship when stopping someone for a traffic violation?

    April 30, 2010 at 9:58 a.m.

  • FYI, Minorities who have been “profiled”, know that police can make up a “legitimate” reason for stopping you.

    At the corner near Cactus, I was turning onto Navarro, when the lights came on behind me. The officer came up too me and said, “you turned the corner slowly, that is why I pulled you over”.

    I turned the corner slowly, did he not notice how the road was designed to give any car turning fast a heart attack, if it had a heart. Maybe some people don’t value their cars enough to drive more carefully “were Victoria needs to fix the damn roads”!

    Eventually, after asking my life story, which incidentally made me feel uneasy, I was allowed to go. Despite this, I was followed for awhile, until finally he got off my butt!

    I turned the corner to slowly for him, that was my offense for being pulled over and having my “privacy violated”.

    Those that argue for this law, either do not want to acknowledge how it may be applied in the real world or are ignorant of it. One condition is excusable the other is “malicious”.

    April 30, 2010 at 9:19 a.m.

  • May I suggest that someone read the law as it is written.

    Arizona law says and does the same thing as current federal law.
    Hhmmm..
    Federal law okay,...Arizona law unconstitutional.
    Arizona law has more double the checks than federal law to make sure no ones civil rights are violated.
    Arizona law still much worse than federal law.
    Democrat Pres Nobama says if you take your child to the burger joint you will be stopped and asked for your papers if you look hispanic. The law does not say that and that's typical Democrat, lie or do anything to win.
    Somebody has been drinking the kool aid and watching all that progressive DNC TV again.

    April 30, 2010 at 8:52 a.m.

  • "If constituents praise the Arizona legislature for enacting legislation that does not meet constitutional muster , then they are part of the problem."

    Wow, all you'd have to do is remove Arizona from that statement and you will have the current situation at the federal level concerning forced health care.

    And knee jerk? I suggest that you read "The Reaper's Line: Life & Death On The Mexican Border" which deals with problems of illegal aliens and especially the area of Douglas, AZ as seen from a federal agent.

    April 30, 2010 at 7:52 a.m.

  • "Do we want a police state where the police ask American citizens for their papers?" Uhhnnn....Let me see....Police Officer walks up to my window and says "May I see you driver's license and proof of insurance?" I think we already do that. If you would use your pea brain to actually do a little background research, the AZ law says the police can ask to see proof of who your are if they have some reason to stop you. In fact, the AZ law actually COMPLETELY MIRRORS EXISTING FEDERAL LAW! Wow, then why are they making such a big deal. Is it maybe so they can divert attention away from how they have completely screwed the American people with 0bama care?

    April 30, 2010 at 7:46 a.m.

  • Paraphrase:
    “Silly and unconstitutional” hmmmm.

    April 29, 2010 at 1:52 p.m.