world

LA approves Arizona boycott over immigration law

140 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

140 Comments
Login to comment

LA must be run by some really inept people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's ironic that LA, a city that pays for stuff with IOU's, and has no money for city services, thinks that Arizona would care about what they think. LA has no money precisely because of the illegal immigration problem and the myriad of problems it creates. Arizona, on the other hand, has 5000 people a month moving in to live from over in LA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

L.A., if not most of Cal, is full of people who think slapping a 'political' bumper sticker on the SUV affects something, somewhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, Arizona businesses will surely think twice before they pass another immigration law!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Personally, I find myself offended over this issue. After the Suns decided they represented Mexico rather then Phoenix, wearing Los Suns jerseys, I sold my ticket. With this in mind, this boycott issue doesn't really effect me, since I already am planning to skip any of the remaining games this season. Sure as hell I ain't going to LA for their games there. With this though, think I'll take my vacation this year in Hawaii rather then California. More expensive, but easier on the conscience.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For each boycott there will be a 'buy-cott'. Add to that the fact that 'liberal' California is losing citizens in huge numbers to states like Arizona and Nevada. They vote with their feet, in the finest American tradition.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah LA pays about a billion dollars a year in taxes just to the illegal population. Ironically all the public votes in Ca that crack down on illegal population have the exact same persentage of people oppose it that are in the state illegally. This is getting to be a huge problem in the states. In every other nation on earth illegally entering a country is a crime that carried jailtime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I personally have no problem with Arizona's law. I feel it's state's rights. I also see that this is a federal problem that they haven't carried out.

That being said, if GA passes a law you don't like, do you boycott GA? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Arizona should consider itself fortunate. Los Angeles/California doesn't pay its bills and is broke. It will be even more broke once all the illegals from Arizona migrate to California and start sucking up services. 74% of Americans support Arizona's new law, so the leaders of failed cities like Boston and Los Angeles are way out of touch with the citizens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh No! What would all the libs do if they are banned from going to Sedona???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

California (and L.A.) is on the verge of financial collapse and the City Council wastes their time on this crap. I love how these liberal posters condemn Arizona for protecting it citizens. I'm sure you or any of your loved ones have never had a medical emergency and were in need of a hospital emergency room, but had to wait there for hours because of freeloading illegals. Let me clue you MSNBC-lovers in on the fact that people who come into America illegally are thumbing their noses at the thousands of immigrants who are on waiting lists to come here legally. The reality is the Democrats want to put all illegals on a path to citizenship to increase their support base. Seal the border first, then work out a fair plan that will allow working illegals to stay with restrictions -- but not citizenship.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Illegals should be sent home along with their chilcdren even if their children were born here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

"That being said, if GA passes a law you don't like, do you boycott GA?"

You're being disingenuous in pretending that this Arizona law is just any old law. If Georgia were to pass a law establishing institutional discrimination against, say, white Christian evangelists, then yes, I'd boycott Georgia, too.

Arguments in support of this law are frighteningly similar to arguments in support of warrantless wire-tapping, warrantless questioning by law enforcement, and suspension of habeas corpus, a la, "Well, if you've got nothing to hide, then you shouldn't be worried about being stopped."

Sadly, the people who make this argument have virtually nil chance of ever being stopped to test that theory, mainly due to the lighter tint of their skin.

The Arizona law may have had good intentions in its conception, but it can be nothing else but racist in its execution, no matter how much one tries to justify with lofty constitutional ideals like “State’s Rights” the inevitable racial profiling (racist bigotry) that will occur. You don’t become the monster to fight one. That’s not what the U.S. is supposed to be about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Recent Pew Poll - "Fully 73 percent say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them."

Anyone screaming 'racial profiling' is mentally still a child.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain: "The Arizona law may have had good intentions in its conception, but it can be nothing else but racist in its execution, no matter how much one tries to justify with lofty constitutional ideals like “State’s Rights” the inevitable racial profiling (racist bigotry) that will occur. You don’t become the monster to fight one. That’s not what the U.S. is supposed to be about."

BINGO! I don't think there's anything wrong with the IDEA behind the new law -- it's the execution of it I'm worried about, and even if people try their hardest not to engage in racial profiling, it would still occur. What's more, if you have a few bad apples as police officers, they are fully protecting in harassing American citizens who may have different skin colour, or what have you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Illegals should be sent home along with their chilcdren even if their children were born here.

Ok, agree and disagree. Agree that illegals should be sent home, and that minor children should be sent with their parents. But children born here who are adults, should be able to stay, regardless of their parents status. And I'd go so far as to say, that having gone back home, their adult children should then be able to help their parents get legitimate visas.

Just my own opinion.

but it can be nothing else but racist in its execution

Complete and utter nonsense. Not a race issue, its a criminal issue. People who can't understand this are throwing up straw men just for the sake of argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Egalityranny,

You only present a part of the fuller picture to build your argument.

73% of Americans do indeed support requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them, but the question in the survey doesn't take into account at all how determinations are to made by police regarding who will be asked and who won't.

It'd be nice of you to present the broader results of the Pew poll in your rush to paint your distorted picture of supposedly broad support of this Arizona law.

While 73% of Americans polled approve of the identification provision, with 23% opposing, when all elements of the Arizona law were considered, that support plunged to 59% in favor, while opposition rose to 32%.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Political correctness and "liberal" posturing on race kills far more innocents than racial profiling - a meaningless term - "harms" or "oppresses" minorities in America:

" Last month alone, just in one patrol region, we had sixty-four pursuits. That means people who were driving a vehicle, failed to yield, took off like a bat out of hell, running red lights, creating traffic wrecks, numerous people were killed in these wrecks over the last several months, and who are these people? Not one of them was a U.S. citizen. "

source: http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/05/10/media-take-note-in-arizona-county-of-64-highway-chases-last-month-not-one-perp-a-u-s-citizen/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't like law, but this laws is going go go through. While much of it is racist, I, as an Hispanic, will deal with the profiling if this law can bring down the pain, misery, crime against Hispanics, especially the kidnapping of LATINO children.

Of course, I wish there were alternatives, but no one is putting any up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Arguments in support of this law are frighteningly similar to arguments in support of warrantless wire-tapping

Horse feathers. Arguments in support of this law are based on an ALREADY EXISTING federal law that the government has no interest in enforcing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Loki520,

"Arguments in support of this law are based on an ALREADY EXISTING federal law that the government has no interest in enforcing."

Horse feathers. The problem with enforcing current federal laws has less to do with lack of interest and more to do with lack of resources. There aren't enough border patrol agents or funds to do what proponents of the bill want done, namely definitively locking down the 3,138 km U.S.-Mexican border.

If Arizonans want more to be done about illegal immigration, then they should be leading the pack calling for more taxes to give the federal agents tasked with border protect what they need.

But then again, that flies right in the face of the very demographic that opposes taxes, opposes increased government intrusion into our lives, opposes anything that might involve a government not in political and ideological lockstep with it, yet paradoxially whines because they think Uncle Sam isn't doing enough to help them with this particular issue -- that demographic being the conservative Republicans who overwhelmingly support this law.

So what Arizona has essentially done is create a redundant federal law at the local level, complete with all the budget and manpower shortfalls that have plagued the U.S. Border Patrol for years, while stacking an impossible new load of responsibilities on local law enforcement authorities overburdened with an already difficult job of enforcinf local civil laws -- All this in a state that is $36 billion in debt.

Arizona has effectively created a micro-version of the very same machine that has failed for the the federal government.

And in its desperation to look as if it's just the "common-sense thing to do," Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has forced law-enforcement officials to do the very thing that she swears can't -- but inevitably will -- happen: Racial profiling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What other alternatives are there? Will the latino cops go out and seek possible illegal Canadians or Brits? And does this LA boycott include private companies?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Horse feathers. The problem with enforcing current federal laws has less to do with lack of interest and more to do with lack of resources. There aren't enough border patrol agents or funds to do what proponents of the bill want done, namely definitively locking down the 3,138 km U.S.-Mexican border.

So, the problem is that the federal government can't enforce its own laws.

If Arizonans want more to be done about illegal immigration, then they should be leading the pack calling for more taxes to give the federal agents tasked with border protect what they need.

Or they could simply act to enforce the federal laws, that apparently the federal government can't be bothered to enforce. What this has done, is essentially add 20k plus border patrol agents. Thats only in Arizona. What it means is, that effectively, the illegal immigrant problem will become someone elses problem. New Mexico, Texas, and of course California, as all these illegals up and relocate out of state. Those who are citizens, or have legal residency won't feel impelled to do so, as the law won't effect them in the slightest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you live in the border zone (constitution free zone) you are already "racially profiled" -If you are a citizen they check everything and if you are an illegal they let you go.

The states are grouping together against these Federal policies that many feel are against the law and dangerous to their citizens. =I expect the SouthWest and Texas to group together in support of Arizona on this. Instead of goods coming from the West --> they will come from the East thru Texas ports. =This action only hurts Californica.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The city staged a similar economic boycott against South Africa during apartheid and against Colorado after voters in 1992 passed a state law repealing local ordinances that banned discrimination against homosexuals.

Well, the Angelinos have spoken and I'm waging other big cities will follow suit. But as one poster already asked, will the boycott include private companies too?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone who complained at least once about Japanese police racial profiling them needs to stfu about supporting this Arizona law. This WILL cause people to harass legit immigrants AND citizens based solely on their race. It is a definition of racial profiling, but I guess it's ok as long as it's not against a white man right? If you support this Arizona law, you have no right to complain about Japanese racial discrimination.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Shame on California; political pandering at its worst. Good for Arizona; doing the job that federal politicians have cowardly ducked for years. And, yes, I have been stopped many times by Japanese police, shown my card and then moved merrily along.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain,

I'm talking about any law being passed. Not just an immigration law. What if GA passed a no littering law, a j-walking law they you disagree with; do you boycott GA? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Doesn't a boycott of Arizona by any other city or state simply hurt the economy of Arizona and therefore hurt the illgal immigrants as well? I think this "racial profiling" is blown out of proportion. LOE don't have the time to stop and check every person walking down the street because they "might" be an illegal. But being an illegal could nail you if you get stopped for a legitimate reason. If LA feels that the Arizona Law is racist and hey should boycott, since the Arizona law merely mirrors existing Federal Law why don't they boycott the United States too? In return the US can ignore any reguests for federal funding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can't really blame the people of Arizona here, and likely more states will follow in kind. It's like when you see that sign in the elevator that says maximum occupancy ___. There's a set limit for a reason. States like Arizona see an influx of illegals that far outreaches their ability to cope. The drain on fiscal and physical resources becomes too much and something has to give. It isn't fair to the legal citizens - both those who are natural born and those who went through the correct channels. No, it isn't fair that those who did come here in the proper way will be profiled - but what's the alternative? No one seems to know that. You can pass legislation now to increase border protection (actually as LFRAgain rightly stated, it would be allocating the appropriate tax dollars) but that doesn't address the problem that's already here.

LFRAgain, your comment:

But then again, that flies right in the face of the very demographic that opposes taxes, opposes increased government intrusion into our lives, opposes anything that might involve a government not in political and ideological lockstep with it, yet paradoxially whines because they think Uncle Sam isn't doing enough to help them with this particular issue -- that demographic being the conservative Republicans who overwhelmingly support this law.

That's sort of a loaded summation that is not exactly true. The problem is that when liberals raise taxes, increasing border security usually isn't on their list - instead health care for all, including these illegals, tends to be the port of call. Oh they may talk loud about the issue to accuse conservatives of doing nothing, but then they shout about human rights and quietly forget about it. In true fact, more tax money is available for such things if we drop some of the truly stupid things that we spend money on in this country (even to the detriment of our children's education). No, I would say that if a true bill would come along that wasn't tacked onto with a lot of nonsense that simply said the allocated funds were to be used solely for the purpose of shutting down our borders, most Americans would give a sound hurrah.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I welcome any effort to enforce immigration laws, yet at the same time Arizona is pretty racist just the same. I don't blame them, but I have to roll my eyes when they talk about this issue on their high horse and pretend like racial profiling isn't already happening.

The problem is we have a ridiculously long border with another country, and that country is full of people that would like to work here. Even better enforcement is going to have limited effect and is not the real solution. It only makes for campaign promises.

The good news is by the time we realize "new new enforcement" isn't enough, that politician will have a cozy job as an incumbent.

People like to think there's an easy solution to problems. They're wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well if the US government isn't doing their job then it's up to the people of Arizona to take the law into their own hands. This is acceptable by today's liberal as we could see with Sea Shepherd. So no problem there. However just to make sure they are not racial profiling they'll have to start stopping everyone even with out of state license plates so as not to profile only Arizonan illegals. So Arizonans can now stop absolutely anyone that is driving through with or without an Arizona plate. I'd especially stop white people because well they are just so racist and are never on the receiving end of this profiling. So lets profile everyone as a stranger and treat them all with fairness. It's the liberal way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mikehuntez you are talking drivel. the problem with the law is that it makes a large % of the population of arizona criminals based on the colour of their skin. illegal immigration needs to be stopped but that is not the intention of this bill.if they wanted to stop illegal immigration they should fine the companies employing them.but of course the republicans wont do that. they want it both ways-cheap workers and demonising those they are encouraging to come and employing. you know during the boom a few yrs ago the big companies would send buses down to mexico city to bus in illegals?? most ironic is that quite a number of the people who are now demonized under the law are descendents of people who have been living in arizona a lot longer than white people have.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

U.S. government has demonstrated a complete lack of urgency to control illegal immigration both on the borders and within the interior. Illegal aliens will be as corrupt as the system allows them to be. The problem of illegal immigration doesn't need anymore studies or debates, it needs leadership and enforcement. Because U.S. government can't enforce the existing immigration laws, should we be confident they will manage a much larger comprehensive immigration reform? Because government has at all levels failed to control illegal immigration. What most Americans are demanding is to secure the borders, enforce the existing laws inland with no sanctuary status, punish employers who violate employment laws, remove incentives by curbing social services.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And so who is hiring illegals to do all the work that is attracting them in the first place? Maybe there should be better enforcement of the laws against hiring illegals (assuming such laws exist).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How come L.A. isn't boycotting places like Japan, Korea, etc... Or even Mexico as those countries have some very very strict illegal immigration policies with Mexico actually going as far as jailing someone who is illegal.

hehehohohaha: Maybe there should be better enforcement of the laws against hiring illegals (assuming such laws exist)." My partners back in the states paid a fine, but we were allowed to keep the worker, just got a lawyer and things worked out rather quickly. We just didn't understand the system. The guy was educated, knew his stuff, and was in the process of getting married. We just didn't know the legalities at the time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

illegal immigration needs to be stopped but that is not the intention of this bill.

Oh yeah I believe they introduced this bill only for the sole purpose of harassing people with not so white skin. That's it. Man you got it!! I wish I had seen this earlier.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong at 10:20 AM JST - 14th May. How come L.A. isn't boycotting places like Japan, Korea, etc... Or even Mexico as those countries have some very very strict illegal immigration policies with Mexico actually going as far as jailing someone who is illegal.

What a dumb question. If you ever been to L.A., majority of the population is either permanent resident Hispanics or majority of illegal Hispanics from Mexico. The Hispanics have strong politcal influence in the City of Angels. The U.S. Immigration Law is not a vocabulary in L.A. and is rarely enforced. Drive down the street and spend some time there in L.A. and you will quickly understand the magnitude of immigration problem. It is about time that U.S. Govenment enforce the immigration law according to law forcefully.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lets put the shoe on the other foot and test the new Arizona law. What if history was different and the United States was completely settled by the Spanish and later the Mexican's (Spanish and Indigenous Indians mixed) and other Latino populations and what is now Canada was all Caucasian (white) and they, the White Canadians, were sneaking across the border and taking the low paying jobs away from the Latinos. I guarantee that the Latino population of the United Latino States of America would detain those individuals and deport them. So tell me why the United States of America and it's individual States who by law can create and enforce their own laws should not be allowed to enforce it's laws and protect it's rights and citizens from foreign invasion by foreign criminals?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir,

"What it means is, that effectively, the illegal immigrant problem will become someone elses problem. New Mexico, Texas, and of course California, as all these illegals up and relocate out of state."

No. What it means is that illegals in the state will do what they've always done, but stay even further off the radar of law enforcement officials. They will work harder to not stand out, which will force the police to adopt more legally dubious methods of ferreting out illegals from actual citizens, i.e., racial profiling.

Everyone keeps insisting, "Naw, it's not racial profiling to stop someone who looks like they might Mexican, and therefore illegal."

But tell me this? What exactly is the criteria for deciding who gets asked and who doesn't? No. Seriously. How are they going to tell who's legal and who's not when they make the field call to stop someone and ask? Only Hispanics riding in motor vehicles in groups larger than eight? Five? Three? They’re going to net a whole lot of legal citizens that way, opening up the State of Arizona to a lot of illegal search and seizure lawsuits.

Will they only ask Hispanics who are in the midst of breaking a law besides immigration one? Well, these alien would've been caught under the old regime.

I can think of no permutation or situation in which a police officer would have just cause to question whether anyone, regardless of the color of their skin, was in the country illegally. Not one. If you or anyone else here can provide an example of a situation in which the police would have just cause, I'm all ears.

Above and beyond this, you and proponents of this bill are truly fooling yourselves if you genuinely think this law is going to make a dent in the illegal immigration problem, much less lead to a mass exodus to neighboring states. Illegal immigrants go to where the jobs are. They will go to where the quality of life is better. It’s as simple as that.

They’re already taking huge risks coming to the country illegally in the first place. They’ve already trudged 100 miles on foot across a desert to get to the U.S. in the summer heat. Do you really think the threat of being deported is going to be daunting in the least? What’s another 20,000 cops looking for them really add to the equation? So they’ll get caught and sent back. So what? They’ve been caught and sent back before. And they came back again. Why? Because the jobs are here.

I’ll tell you what you are going to see in increase of, though: Just what Egalityranny’s pointed out in an earlier post. Illegals are going to be more inclined to flee at the first sign of the police, creating more dangerous situations due to pursuit. And you’re going to see more innocent Arizonans having their physical persons put in the same dangerous line of fire as their civil rights.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330,

"If you ever been to L.A., majority of the population is either permanent resident Hispanics or majority of illegal Hispanics from Mexico.

Umm... Two majorities? Does that mean the L.A. population is 101% Hispanic? Interesting math.

Been to L.A. a few times. It's nothing like the fantasy you spun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

"I'm talking about any law being passed. Not just an immigration law. What if GA passed a no littering law, a j-walking law they you disagree with; do you boycott GA?"

And I'm saying that your excercise in what-if can't possibly apply here. Your examples aren't the same beast by any stretch of the imagination. All laws are not inherently equal, either in inception or execution. Make the penalty for jaywalking in GA deportation or execution, and then maybe we can talk about the boycott angle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tigermoth,

"The problem is that when liberals raise taxes, increasing border security usually isn't on their list . . . "

Let's be honest here. Locking down the borders wasn't exactly a priority for eight years of conservative leadership either, so taking the partisan route in refuting my statement isn't very effective. Sure, anti-terrorism efforts were expanded, but illegal immigrants creating the kind of economic hardship that border states are experiencing were largely ignored.

"No, I would say that if a true bill would come along that wasn't tacked onto with a lot of nonsense that simply said the allocated funds were to be used solely for the purpose of shutting down our borders, most Americans would give a sound hurrah."

I couldn't agree with you more. The problem is that most Americans don't agree with one another on what constitutes "shutting down our borders." And if you're suggesting that only liberals tack pork spending onto immigration legislation, I'd be sorely tempted to call you naïve .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SFJP330, please link the relevant url for your reply:

Our government has demonstrated a complete lack of urgency to control illegal immigration both on the borders and within the interior. People are as corrupt as the system allows them to be. This is where temptation meets permissiveness that corruption takes root on a large scale. The problem of illegal immigration doesn't need anymore studies or debates, it needs leadership and enforcement. However, since our government can't enforce the existing immigration laws, should we be confident they will manage a much larger comprehensive immigration reform? Because our government has at all levels failed to control illegal immigration, legislators are now addressing the problems at their local levels with bills to manage it incrementally, piece-by-piece, rather than trying to fix the national crisis at once--an impossible task. What most Americans are demanding is to secure the borders, enforce the existing laws inland with no sanctuary status, punish employers who violate employment laws, remove incentives by curbing social services and pressure Latin American leaders to discourage illegal entry into America

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/browse_thread/thread/ca32ed5377e1c711

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain at 03:34 PM JST - 14th Ma. Umm... Two majorities? Does that mean the L.A. population is 101% Hispanic? Interesting math. Been to L.A. a few times. It's nothing like the fantasy you spun.

I guess you look at fantasy. Can you add 1 plus 1 = for you a Fantasy? LA County has one of the most diverse populations in the world. Here is the two majority: Latinos are the largest racial/ethnic group in the county, comprising 47 percent of the population and this statistics does not include illegals from Mexico. Whites comprised 30 percent of the population, Asians 12 percent, African Americans 9 percent, people of more than one race 1 percent, and all others 1 percent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa already has said he would approve the boycott".

He should focus on his own city.

"The mayor said the raids target people who make a positive contribution to the community, and they ignore violent criminals. But critics say Villaraigosa supports a controversial policy that prevents cops from enforcing immigration policy."

Source: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376081,00.html

Well, does Mayor Villaraigosa enforce current U.S. Immigration law that applies to Los Angeles, California? He should look in the mirror. Why do L.A. get involved in policies of meddling in the affairs of Arizona? The city should not take a position on actions of other states. LA has enough of their own problems with increase illegals and gangs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why do L.A. get involved in policies of meddling in the affairs of Arizona?

Boycotting is not meddling, it's simply choosing not spend their money in Arizona, if a majority of the residents of L.A. dislike how Arizona immigration law works, then mayor is just acting on behalf of his constituency and has ever right to choose where L.A. money is being spent. The real question is why do you think you can dictate what L.A.'s spending policies should be?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good_Jorb at 05:15 AM JST - 15th May. Boycotting is not meddling, it's simply choosing not spend their money in Arizona, if a majority of the residents of L.A. dislike how Arizona immigration law works, then mayor is just acting on behalf of his constituency and has ever right to choose where L.A. money is being spent.

Huhh?? What a dumb answer. What does residents got to do with this? Nothing. Do you know anything about contracts? All of these have existing contracts. City of LA can make alot of noise but little will change regarding boycott of Arizona. Why, because there is going to be lawsuits if LA decides to cancel. The LAX and the Port of Los Angeles must now consider whether to cancel nearly $26 million worth contracts with companies based in Arizona, which will be difficult to do. If they did, see you in court.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Huhh?? What a dumb answer. What does residents got to do with this? Nothing.

Foolish me, yes what do the residents of L.A. have to do with how the mayor sets city policy, I mean it's not like he was elected by the citizens of L.A. to represent the will of the majority of L.A. citizens. If it is will of the majority of the citizens of L.A. it's the mayor civic duty to oblige them, that is how a little thing called democracy is suppose to work.

As for contacts; most contacts have time/renewal clauses, I.E. the contact is to be reviewed and renewed ever 6 months/ever year or what have you and at that time contacts can be terminated. As well most contacts have termination clauses with stipulated fines. The boycott would probable be enacted by simply choosing not to renew the contacts with Arizona, by paying the fines set out in the termination clauses and by not entering in new contacts with Arizona. It clearly states that not all contracts would be terminated in the article. All noise or not, it's still well within the rights of L.A. to choose not to do business with Arizona.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good_Jorb at 09:15 AM JST - 15th May. It clearly states that not all contracts would be terminated in the article. All noise or not, it's still well within the rights of L.A. to choose not to do business with Arizona.

I will bet you this will not happen to almost all contracts. THIS ONE THE BIGGEST WITH FIVE YEAR CONTRACT AND YOU WANT TO LOSE $26 MILLION? You're nuts. The LAX and the Port of Los Angeles must now consider whether to cancel nearly $26 million worth contracts with companies based in Arizona. which will be difficult to do. If you do, lawsuits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Still waiting for someone here to present a plausible situation in which Arizona law enforcement officers would have just cause to stop someone and ask them for proof of citizenship that won't involve stopping someone for looking Mexican, which means Hispanic (which would be, by definition, racial profiling).

Anyone?

Anyone?

Proponents of this law are all gung-ho about this new power given to Arizona police, claiming it'll change everything, without one iota of racial profiling involved.

So what's the criteria a cop might follow to justifiably stop someone in order to check their papers? Is there some sort of "I'm not an American" way of walking, talking, or dressing that stands out in Arizona that the rest of the country isn't aware of?

Anyone at all . . . ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain - Still waiting for someone here to present a plausible situation in which Arizona law enforcement officers would have just cause to stop someone and ask them for proof of citizenship that won't involve stopping someone for looking Mexican, which means Hispanic.

SB1070 (which only morrors federal laws) DOES NOT allow Arizona LEO's to stop people for "looking" Mexican. That IS in the bill. LEO's can question a persons citizenship if the find people hiding in the trunk of a car, selling drugs, robbing stores, stealing cars, speeding, etc.

The Los Angeles government is comprised of moron's who have driven the city into bankruptcy by continually spending money they don't have. The State of California is following Greece's example of creating socialist programs that they can't pay for. The "left" coast is the last place I would use as an example of "good" government.

Arizona has stepped up because the federal government isn't doing the job. Fear-mongerers are lying about SB1070 because "they" support ILLEGAL aliens and amnesty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DOES NOT allow Arizona LEO's to stop people for "looking" Mexican. That IS in the bill. LEO's can question a persons citizenship if the find people hiding in the trunk of a car, selling drugs, robbing stores, stealing cars, speeding, etc.

The law says that all that is needed lawful contact between a person and law enforcement, lawful contact doesn't imply that you had to commit a crime. You can be a witness to or a victim of a crime, you can ask a police what time it is, you can go through a police check stop, and so on, as an extra for SB1070 if you get picked in by someone in car or are seen gesturing with your head in such a way as to imply that you are soliciting for day labor work, both are allowable reason for lawful contact.

The Los Angeles government is comprised of moron's who have driven the city into bankruptcy by continually spending money they don't have.

Yet their debt-per-capita is 23/52, there are a lot worse states then California when it come to indebtness.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

THIS ONE THE BIGGEST WITH FIVE YEAR CONTRACT AND YOU WANT TO LOSE $26 MILLION? You're nuts.

No I'm nuts but I can read, the very first sentence of the article states;

Los Angeles on Wednesday became the largest city yet to boycott Arizona over its tough new law targeting illegal immigration in a move that likely will affect some $8 million in contracts with the state.

8 million is not 26 million.

opps 23/51 (including Puerto Rico) not 23/52

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul,

"Fear-mongerers are lying about SB1070 because "they" support ILLEGAL aliens and amnesty."

If you're going to make asinine, fear-mongering blanket statements along such lines as "[those opposed to the bill do so simply because ] they support illegal aliens and amnesty", then you're going to have a very hard time getting anyone to take you seriously.

Before this law was passed, law enforcement officials already had the power to ask for ID of any person caught in the act of committing a crime. At which point, if the person was deemed to be illegal, they were remanded to the custody of U.S. Immigration to be deported.

So how does this new law make it any easier or more efficient for AZ police to find and deport illegal aliens when they already had the power to check for ID and deport illegals before the law came into being?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Asking for an "ID" is NOT the same as establishing citizenship or LEGAL resident alien status. Currently, ONLY federal LEO's such as ICE, Border Patrol, FBI, etc. handle citizenship/status inquiries. SB1070 will now (finally) allow Arizona LEO's to ask for proof of citizenship or residence status ONLY after that person has been stopped for "reasonable suspicion" of another crime. ILLEGAL aliens will then be turned over to ICE for proper handling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you're going to make asinine, fear-mongering blanket statements along such lines as "[those opposed to the bill do so simply because ] they support illegal aliens and amnesty", then you're going to have a very hard time getting anyone to take you seriously.

Wait, you mean asnine fear-mongering statements like this one...?

Still waiting for someone here to present a plausible situation in which Arizona law enforcement officers would have just cause to stop someone and ask them for proof of citizenship that won't involve stopping someone for looking Mexican, which means Hispanic

Look in the mirror. The one doing the fear-mongering is you. How about this for a response. Someone is pulled over for speeding. (Note not for looking hispanic) They don't have a license. Police ask if they're a citizen or have papers... Quite troublesome eh? Definite harrasment. Someone not having papers, driving illegally, having broken not only state traffic law, but also possibly immigration law. Note that his race didn't even enter into the equation. Only a twisted racist fear-mongerer could even think it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The law says that all that is needed lawful contact between a person and law enforcement, lawful contact doesn't imply that you had to commit a crime. You can be a witness to or a victim of a crime, you can ask a police what time it is, you can go through a police check stop, and so on, as an extra for SB1070 if you get picked in by someone in car or are seen gesturing with your head in such a way as to imply that you are soliciting for day labor work, both are allowable reason for lawful contact.

You are obviously ill informed. The follow up law that was passed clarifies this quite well. Pretty much does away with the entire basis of your argument as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir,

How about this for a response. Someone is pulled over for speeding. (Note not for looking hispanic) They don't have a license. Police ask if they're a citizen or have papers...?

Not a very good one. There is absolutely nothing in the above scenario that wouldn't have occurred at any point during a normal criminal investigation of a speeding traffic violation under the old regime. Upon not producing a valid driver’s license, the police would have had the opportunity to discover if the violator had legitimate business in the state, courtesy of the vast NCIC database. If the driver didn’t show up in the system at all, he or she would’ve faced greater scrutiny, and if found to be an undocumented alien, would have been deported -- the way it’s been happening for years.

So again, what's so different about this new law that couldn't have been achieved under the old system, other than giving local law enforcement broader powers to check the IDs of citizens and illegals alike? Not much, except for implicit government consent to broaden the opportunities for an officer to ask someone for ID.

If the point of this new law is truly to effect a higher rate of discovery of illegals, then it’s a deeply flawed law, as it makes no special provisions for stopping someone outside of the usual reasons outlined in the civil code, i.e., speeding. All things being equal here, including an unchanging rate of speeding violations, robberies, assaults, etc., police aren’t going to experience any greater opportunities to check IDs with this new law than they experienced under the old system. So where are the much-ballyhooed benefits of this new law for Arizonans? How are illegals going to be sent fleeing to the supposed safety of border states with supposedly greater scrutiny from law enforcement officials?

They aren’t.

In order for this law to have any teeth whatsoever, in order for this law to see any demonstrable improvement over the old system, officers are going to have to exercise greater latitude in how they determine whether someone is worth asking for ID. After all, the police can’t just set up on a street corner and ask everyone who walks by (although I’d wager there are some out there who would think that perfectly acceptable).

To see any benefit from this law whatsoever, officers would have to use new and more liberal criteria for stopping people in the hopes of catching more illegals -- especially since the number of law breakers attracting police attention, locals and illegals alike, isn't going to magically go up in harmonious cooperation with State's desire to give police more chances to net illegals.

Arizona essentially drew a line in the sand or the nation, daring anyone to prove them wrong about this law, but has only ended up trapping itself in a corner of having to prove that this law wasn’t a fluke, or at the least, a huge waste of time, and at worst, a willful trashing of American civil rights.

So now Arizona has to pony up results or look like a fool.

The law lacking any of those special provisions I was talking about earlier, leaves law enforcement officials no other choice but to artificially inflate their opportunities to catch illegals. They aren’t going to get the results they boasted about any other way. And the only criteria available for giving the police those increased opportunities is if they look at skin color.

Which means a lot of Hispanic Arizonans are going to have to give up a right Caucasian Arizonans take for granted by virtue of being lighter skinned. Color it any way you like, but that's racial profiling, and it will occur with increasing frequency, now largely because it has the blessings of the State.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain -

So again, what's so different about this new law that couldn't have been achieved under the old system, other than giving local law enforcement broader powers to check the IDs of citizens and illegals alike? Not much, except for implicit government consent to broaden the opportunities for an officer to ask someone for ID.

Currently, Arizona LEO's can not question a persons citizenship or resident status. That's the job of federal authorities. Asking for an ID is still not the same thing as establishing a legal right to be in the U.S..

Arizona LEO's will soon be able to question the eligibility of a rapists, robbers and car jackers to be in the U.S.. They still won't be able to stop someone for "looking" like an ILLEGAL alien. Hiding under the rear seat of a car will provide the "reasonable suspicion" that a person, regardless of skin color, might have entered the U.S. ILLEGALLY.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not a very good one. There is absolutely nothing in the above scenario that wouldn't have occurred at any point during a normal criminal investigation of a speeding traffic violation under the old regime. Upon not producing a valid driver’s license, the police would have had the opportunity to discover if the violator had legitimate business in the state, courtesy of the vast NCIC database.

Thats exactly the point. The difference is, now its a state crime, its not catch and release by the local LEOs. Now they are expected to arrest them for the immigration violation. And that is precisely the point. Because now being in the country illegally is a state crime, and an arrestable and prosecutable offense. Do you not understand what this means? Really? It means they can and will be charged with a crime of criminal trespass, and either fined or serve jail time. After which they will be handed over to ICE for deportation. Note, this did not previously happen. Previously there was no state crime, and no handing over of people to ICE unless they were arrested for some other crime. Please note that difference. No I don't expect illegals to be fined a great deal of money, or to spend any real length of time in prison. I do expect illegals who previously would not have been deported, to be handed over to ICE for deportation. So no, despite your blatant fear-mongering, no Hispanics are going to be pulled over because of the color of their skin. People will however be pulled over because they are breaking some other law, they will be discovered to be illegals, and deported. And thats the difference. It means its no longer just La Migre that illegals have to worry about, but normal police.

The idea behind this law is simple. Put enough pressure on the illegals, and they'll deport themselves. Knowing that if caught they can be deported for even minor traffic violations, the illegals are much more likely to move to California to find jobs they are currently working in Arizona.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir,

"Previously there was no state crime, and no handing over of people to ICE unless they were arrested for some other crime."

Precisely! They were handed over to ICE after being arrested for some other crime. And deported.

So how is this new law supposed to be any different from the old system if the police still ostensibly have to arrest a person for committing some other crime first, before they can establish citizenship? Honestly, being able to ask a person on the spot if they're a citizen versus asking them an hour or two later doesn't really seem worth all the hubbub that's been generated by this.

Illegals who commit crimes will be caught with the same frequency they would have before – as fast as the police can catch them. And they’ll be deported, just like they were before.

Illegals who never commit crimes that would draw the attention of the police will never be asked about their citizenship status. And they will continue to live and work in Arizona as they did before.

So unless there’s some other magical way police officers are going to be rounding up illegal aliens in greater numbers as a result of this law, no one has made a very compelling argument for why and how this law is any more effective than what was in place before. Considering someone has to commit a crime or be under reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime (exclusive of legal residency status), I still don’t see how this law is going to produce results that in any way deliver a hearty ”boo-yah!” to the efforts of the federal government unless racial profiling is exercised.

To be honest, I'm starting to reassess my original hypothesis about this law. I don’t think it’s going to turn into a civil rights disaster at all. I don’t think that law enforcement officials are going to be foolish enough to undertake the racial profiling that would be necessary to make this law even remotely useful. Because of that, it’s becoming more evident to me that this law is little more than a worthless piece of feel-good legislation dreamt up by politicians seeking another term in office. This law is an attempt to pander to the conservative constituency that eats this nonsense up. And it looks like it worked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So how is this new law supposed to be any different from the old system if the police still ostensibly have to arrest a person for committing some other crime first, before they can establish citizenship? Honestly, being able to ask a person on the spot if they're a citizen versus asking them an hour or two later doesn't really seem worth all the hubbub that's been generated by this.

I could have sworn I answered that. Look up, its in my previous posts. Did you miss it? Meh, anyway, to reiterate. Now a person does not have to be arrested, merely being pulled over for speeding triggers the residence check. That means any contact in which you would normally have been cited for a minor violation before, will mean you getting deported now. That is the difference. And with illegals knowing this, they are much more likely to pack up and head to California.

On a related note, San Diego's decision to boycott Arizona is having blowback now, as Arizona residents (70% of whom support this law) are choosing to vacation elsewhere. Myself, I had planned to vacation in LA this year. Probably going to Hawaii instead. With the majority of Americans supporting this as well, coming out and saying you support illegals, the way LA, San Diego, and a few other cities have done, will have consequences.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have govenment entities as well as businesses boycotting Arizona for taking a stand against a criminal act. To be sure, how this new law will be enforced and whether it is effective is yet to be seen. However, we should be applauding Arizona leaders for taking a long overdue action where our federal leaders will not.

Why would any rational person want to penalize a state for simply attempting to uphold the law and protect their communities? I think a better idea is to boycott the groups boycotting Arizona. Any boycott could backfire, and going to boycott travel to Arizona, where L.A. Dodgers have spring training facilities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain at 03:01 PM JST - 17th May. no one has made a very compelling argument for why and how this law is any more effective than what was in place before.

There will be. Most likely, there will be a economic benefit for the law enforcement. This will save money for the potential legal fees. The changes of the Arizona law will reduce the number legal lawsuits on police brutality and illegal search to legal and illegal residents. The results is that law enforcement can be more aggressive since the law is protecting their side and has backing for wider range of police action. It's about time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most likely, there will be a economic benefit for the law enforcement. This will save money for the potential legal fees.

If this law results in the massive increase in arrests that proponents insist it will, the legal system will be flooded by this supposed torrent of newly-caught illegals having to be processed for deportation. After all, U.S. immigration isn't going to magically have more personnel in place to handle the flood of deportees Arizona is promising its voters. So those illegals caught will have to be held somewhere, likely local jails, which will in turn result in increased inmate costs.

The local police, in the meantime, will be tied up with an entirely new regime of paperwork and processing responsibilities to deal with this new influx, all on top of their other duties. Which will result in a significant spike in man-hours. Which means overtime costs for a state that's already $36 billion in debt.

In the meantime, while the police are legally obligated to run in every illegal they find, caught for any petty offence, as Molenir insists is the case, who's watching over the citizens of Arizona and making sure the locals are behaving?

Any hopes for a financial windfall of any sort are misplaced. This law is a pointless feel-good Band-Aid, and nothing more. There's got to be a better solution aimed at the underlying causes.

You know what the icing on the entire cake is? Anyone that gets deported will probably just come back, especially when there are still jobs to be had.

These folks crossed a desert at the risk of dying of thirst, heat stroke, or possibly even being shot by those yahoo police-wanna’-be, ahem, Minutemen, in order to get a better paying job. Does anyone here really believe that the threat of deportation is going to deter them?

Here’s an idea: If this illegal alien thing is the scourge that everyone claims it is, if it’s really such a "terrible plague upon our nation," then why don't people start acting like it and going to the source of the problem, namely the people who employ illegals at great personal financial benefit? Why doesn't Arizona put its money where its mouth is, and nail those who hire illegals to the wall?

No, not this namby-pamby fine, coupled with a short-term suspension of their business license, plus a very genial probation during which the employer has to submit- -- egads! -- regular reports proving what a good citizen they are. Hit them with heavy fines plus jail time right out of the gate. First offense, BAM! Off to jail you go. You want to see illegals stop coming to the U.S.? Make their would-be employers quake in their boots at the consequences of hiring them and you’ll see a faster drop in border crossings than anything this law promises to deliver.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here’s an idea: If this illegal alien thing is the scourge that everyone claims it is, if it’s really such a "terrible plague upon our nation," then why don't people start acting like it and going to the source of the problem, namely the people who employ illegals at great personal financial benefit? Why doesn't Arizona put its money where its mouth is, and nail those who hire illegals to the wall?

They did. It's called SB1070. Maybe you should have read the bill. -

Sec. 6. Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense

--A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First thing first, I support the controversial AZ enforcement law.

President OBAMA won't be able to concentrate on the issue of illegal immigration this year. With the the midterm election and the focus on a broader financial reform the Prez' hands are tied. What states can really expect are just bare promises and recycled policies (Amnesty ala Reagan '86, no thanks!).

Expect much tussle and brawl from both sides of the debate-- add more liberal boycotts and copycat laws from conservative states, too. BUT Jan BREWER's law is pragmatic. AZ have been patient enough and now the state has to act on its own.

AND TO OPPONENTS of this AZ law, care to tell us what'd you expect to see in a fresh immigration reform and why you think immigration laws in the US, not immigration enforcement, are broken?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The immigration law is not broken. But it seems United States' border protection is. Proponents of a new Amnesty Bill (ala Reagan's failed '86 version) are wishful-thinking that this would solve the systematic abuse of America's immigration intake.

Dishonest businesses that go for illegal labor (roughly 10 mil in the US) don't want to pay for bonuses and penalty rates. In fact you can exceed the ave. weekly hours and still be payed flat rate. They don't want to face stiff penalties whenever they break rules that would naturally be enforced to workers employed legally. Illegal workers are susceptible to blackmail after all-- so why should that dodgy employer be afraid of violating the law when it comes to basic employment contract?

These are all just common facts. And the truth when it comes to illegal immigration is that some experiences are even worse off than others.

AND FOR PROPONENTS of a revived Amnesty program:

The new amnesty bill being studied is the same as the failed 1986 version. It's the same vague promises that in the end won't solve the problem of illegals in the US. The previous Amnesty bill covered roughly 3 mil people. If passed, the new Amnesty bill will cover an est 10 mil people

The last attempt to resurrect an amnesty program was in 2006-07. It's sketchy, that even illegal immigrants won't be able to bank on it. Are they learning from past mistakes? A simple Google would answer that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/washington/23amnesty.html

AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, it's an election year-- do they honestly believe that the Dems can come up with their alternative soon (and worse a blanket immigration law overhaul?!).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why doesn't Arizona put its money where its mouth is, and nail those who hire illegals to the wall?

Ah, the irony of it all.. They did and look at where it got them. :|

(Anymore suggestions?)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why would any rational person want to penalize a state for simply attempting to uphold the law and protect their communities?

The same people who thinks the Miss USA pageant should appease the open-border folks

Quote:

Meanwhile, Miss Oklahoma lost out after expressing support for Arizona’s immigration enforcement law and celebrating states’ rights:

Miss Oklahoma USA Morgan Elizabeth Woolard was named first runner-up after handling a question about Arizona’s new immigration law. Woolard said she supports the law, which requires police enforcing another law to verify a person’s immigration status if there’s “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally. She said she’s against illegal immigration but is also against racial profiling. “I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so wonderful about America. So I think it’s perfectly fine for Arizona to create that law.

It's in-saaaaaane!

But isn't it obvious she gave the wrong answer :|

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/16/a-gaffetastic-new-miss-usa/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is practically impossible to think of any legitimate way police could develop a suspicion that someone is here unlawfully without racial profiling. Under this law, people who look "foreign" are more likely to be stopped for minor infractions like having a broken taillight, jaywalking or having an overgrown lawn – and then asked for their papers if police believe, just by looking at them, that they could be in the country unlawfully. That means that U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike will be required to carry papers on them at all times.

S.B. 1070 essentially turns Arizona into a police state, where merely looking "foreign" authorizes the police to treat you as potential criminal suspect.

Here's what the text of SB 1070 says:

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE. 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE. 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION. 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Many states refuse to require proof of citizenship when issuing driver's licenses: they wisely understand that it's more important to have people driving their roads with licenses and documentation than not, and requiring citizenship papers is a good way to discourage it.

So if someone -- say, a fourth-generation Latino citizen with an accent -- traveling through Arizona with a California or a Washington driver's license has the misfortune to be pulled over in a traffic stop,or maybe just one of Sheriff Arpaio's roadblocks and has the similar misfortune to arouse an officer's "reasonable suspicion" (say, he has a heavy accent or looks nervous), he could be hauled in and arrested under SB 1070, until someone back home can fax the birth certificate.

The reality is that Latino drivers in Arizona are already being arrested for failing to carry a birth certificate of proof of citizenship as this video clearly demonstrate.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/az-truck-driver-forced-show-birth-certifica

The high percentage of people being for something is not always a good thing. Remember Jim Crow Laws? They were popular too! Or the internment of Japanese-Americans? That was also quite popular. Just two examples of popular laws that turned out to be fairly dark periods of history. So, good on LA if they want to boycott Arizona over this immigration law, good on them, really.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The high percentage of people being for something is not always a good thing. Remember Jim Crow Laws? They were popular too! Or the internment of Japanese-Americans? That was also quite popular.

Ho-hum...

It's another feel-good multiculturalist, politically-correct 'truth'. The same folks who gave us T O K E N ethno-representations in business, media and politics.

Reminds me of comedian Stephen K AMOS' joke on the BBC's diversity policy (Stephen K AMOS live at the Apollo)-- I have to wait for someone to die before I can get a job there :|

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The reality is that Latino drivers in Arizona are already being arrested for failing to carry a birth certificate of proof of citizenship as this video clearly demonstrate.

Hardly a mortal sin...

The new AZ law won't change and challenge the necessities of the Fourth Amendment. AZ Police will just have to be as tight as an oyster shell when it comes to their involvement with the bill. And if you have a natural cynicism of police in general you just have to suck it up.

The fourth amendment it seems safeguard people (including illegal immigrants) from devious prosecution whereas the evidence was obtained through illegal means (tainted), including 'illegal' police searches and seizures. The provisions of Mapp V Ohio, which is much more relevant to the new AZ enforcement law, further guarantees this protection.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PeaceWarrior - It is practically impossible to think of any legitimate way police could develop a suspicion that someone is here unlawfully without racial profiling. Under this law, people who look "foreign" are more likely to be stopped for minor infractions like having a broken taillight, jaywalking or having an overgrown lawn – and then asked for their papers if police believe, just by looking at them, that they could be in the country unlawfully.

Your first mistake was providing a section of SB1070 establishing what will be considered legitimate proof of citizenship AFTER a stop to push your fear-mongering that people WILL BE stopped for "looking" like an illegal alien (ie racial profiling). SB1070 says that Arizona LEO's can NOT stop someone simply for appearing to be an illegal alien.

They will be able to inquire about a person citizenship if they find someone hiding behind the dashboard of a car (it's happened) or find 30 people in the back of a delivery van (it's common). That would provide the "reasonable suspicion" required.

Your video of the truck driver who was required to provide proof of citizenship has nothing to do with SB1070. 1) Because SB1070 isn't in effect yet and 2) he was picked up by ICE, the federal agency charged with identifying ILLEGAL aliens, not the Arizona police.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul,

You either need to read the bill yourself or read my posts a little better. My point was that for as serious a problem illegal immigration is portrayed to be, proponents don't seen very serious about stopping the employers who would hire illegals. Yes, there are provisions against hiring, just as they have ALWAYS been courtesy of federal law. My complaint has always been directed at why even this "tough" (coff!) Arizona law still continues to approach employers breaking the law with comparative kid gloves.

This is what happens for a first offense:

(a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.

(b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three-year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

(c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state.

Oooooohhhh! Scaaaary . . . An order to stop employing illegals, followed by a demand for affidavits and apaltry 3-year probationary period.

And the best part? All violators have to do to avoid a suspension of their business license is submit within THREE DAYS of being ordered to stop a signed promise never to employ illegals again . Whoop-dee-doo.

Second violations -- assuming they occur within the probationary period, because violators who hire illegals again outside of the probationary period get reset back to “first violation” status” (rolls eyes) -- involve a permanent revocation of one’s business license for that particular business. No provisions preventing someone from just getting a new license sometime down the road. No fines. No jail time. No demonstrable punishments whatsoever against employers who continue to exploit illegal workers for a problem that’s supposedly “bleeding our communities dry,” but a law chock full of generous opportunities for those who employ illegals to get off the hook by demonstrating “good faith” efforts to comply with the law.

This law is a very, very poor joke.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jruaustralia,

The reality is that Latino drivers in Arizona are already being arrested for failing to carry a birth certificate of proof of citizenship as this video clearly demonstrate.

Hardly a mortal sin...

I wonder just how glib you would be if it were you who were forced to have to carry around secondary identification, like a birth certificate to protect your right to move freely in your own country. Not very, I'd wager.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hah. I thank you for your concern, but it's needless.

Which video link was it again-- that you're basing your dire, predictable response? LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But wait, there's more....

Now that you've spelled out the rules which you painstakingly disparaged as a joke... what exactly is the point?

Racial profiling? Your concern for ethnic minorities that they may or may not be targeted by the police?

"Remember Jim Crow Laws? They were popular too! Or the internment of Japanese-Americans?"

Why you're at it, why not bring the American Civil War to the table and Guantanamo Bay? But the fact remains that your fear-- shared by others like you-- are groundless, pathetic nanny-ing that has so far prolonged racial politics in the US.

If you sincerely wants to get rid of white supremacy in the United States-- and it seems you don't-- then cut the bs.

Tokenism-- that's all racial politicking have achieved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which video link was it again-- that you're basing your dire, predictable response? LOL

CORRECTION: the video link was provided by another poster. The link is here

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/az-truck-driver-forced-show-birth-certifica

Now for the liberal indignation.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain at 10:50 PM JST - 18th May. My complaint has always been directed at why even this "tough" (coff!) Arizona law still continues to approach employers breaking the law with comparative kid gloves.

" Approach employers breaking the law" Huh?? This is not the main purpose of this law. You really don't understand the situation there. The Arizona law will not go out of the way to go after employers who hire illegal workers. This is not their main objective. Especially in the agricultural sector that hire mostly illegal migrant workers. They have too much economic impact on the state and they know that.

Main reason for new Arizona law is to give additonal tool to the law enforcement to focus on problems of Mexican gangs. Most of Phoenix's abduction cases relate to the drug trade, as dealers snatch rivals to demand ransom or settle debts, increasing numbers involve illegal migrants. What's happening here marks a shift in the people-smuggling business. A couple of decades ago, workers commonly traveled back and forth across the U.S.-Mexico border, going to the same U.S. farm or construction job each year. Now, organized gangs own the people-smuggling trade. This is partly an unintended consequence of a border crackdown. Making crossings more difficult drove up their cost, attracting brutal Mexican crime rings that forced the small operators out of business. The Phoenix area was affected because tougher enforcement at the border focused on traditional routes in Texas and California. They are funneling more traffic through Arizona along desert corridors controlled by Mexico's drug cartel. The main objective is to control these gangs before they get out of control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain - Yes, there are provisions against hiring, just as they have ALWAYS been courtesy of federal law.

So now you think SB1070 isn't tough enough. FYI - A violation of federal law is not the same thing as a violation of state law. Different LE agencies are involved. What was a federal crime will now also be an Arizona state crime. More LE agencies will be involved.

Arizona is not trying to cripple or hurt Arizona businesses. They are attempting to reduce the number of ILLEGAL aliens in Arizona, unlike Los Angeles's idiotic attempted boycott that is intended to hurt business and employees in both LA and Arizona.

The pro-ILLEGAL alien supporters want to stop ALL deportations of ILLEGAL aliens. That's why they object to any state trying to do the job that the undermanned federal agencies are struggling with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A couple of decades ago, workers commonly traveled back and forth across the U.S.-Mexico border, going to the same U.S. farm or construction job each year. Now, organized gangs own the people-smuggling trade. This is partly an unintended consequence of a border crackdown. Making crossings more difficult drove up their cost, attracting brutal Mexican crime rings that forced the small operators out of business.

This is true in Australia with Pacific Islanders coming back and forth for seasonal jobs. Now it's different with boatloads of so-called asylum seekers coming in hordes from Asia (Sri Lanka). NOW, people smuggling is almost part of the nightly news.

Then the liberals would apologize for turning these people away, and the folks from the Racial Politics Inc would cry R A C I S T!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The pro-ILLEGAL alien supporters want to stop ALL deportations of ILLEGAL aliens. That's why they object to any state trying to do the job that the undermanned federal agencies are struggling with.

The pro-ILLEGAL ALIEN folks are now looking at it in a 'human rights' context... much like this guy from the State Dep't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPBFdUnJTD0&feature=player_embedded

(Watch it!)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The hypocrisy and ignorance of the pro-ILLEGAL alien supporters is unfathomable. The LA city council is boycotting Arizona for passing a law similar to California's own existing law. Little wonder that city and state are bankrupt.

California Penal Code, Section 833-851.90 834b:

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul at 06:37 AM JST - 19th May

You need to stop copy & paste and put into your words if you can. This is boring.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestPaul,

Your video of the truck driver who was required to provide proof of citizenship has nothing to do with SB1070. 1) Because SB1070 isn't in effect yet and 2) he was picked up by ICE, the federal agency charged with identifying ILLEGAL aliens, not the Arizona police.

The video is to establish the fact that people who look different and who speak English with an accent are already getting arrested, not just stopped, but arrested for the crime of not carrying their birth certificate. That's the reality the video is there to demonstrate. He was not picked up by ICE, ICE does not man the weigh stations. In Arizona, the weigh stations are run by Commercial Vehicle Enforcement, which is a Bureau in the Arizona department of Public Safety' Highway Patrol. They turned him over to ICE.

By the way, when was the last time you carried your birth certificate with you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oops #2, this should also be a quote;

Your first mistake was providing a section of SB1070 establishing what will be considered legitimate proof of citizenship AFTER a stop to push

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your first mistake was providing a section of SB1070 establishing what will be considered legitimate proof of citizenship AFTER a stop to push

your fear-mongering that people WILL BE stopped for "looking" like an illegal alien (ie racial profiling). SB1070 says that Arizona LEO's can NOT stop someone simply for appearing to be an illegal alien.

They will be able to inquire about a person citizenship if they find someone hiding behind the dashboard of a car (it's happened) or find 30 people in the back of a delivery van (it's common). That would provide the "reasonable suspicion" required.

Yes, you keep saying that... but the law requires police officers in AZ to demand papers proving the citizenship or immigration status of people they stop if the officer has some undefined "reasonable suspicion" that there are not in the US legally.

As I have said earlier, it is practically impossible to think of any legitimate way police could develop a suspicion that someone is here unlawfully without racial profiling. That's just reality, shown in the video link to exist already. It's not something new, I am not making this up. It exists already.

Have a look at HonestDictator's post on another thread as to how many times he was shadowed and stopped by the police, all because of his skin colour. Not fun. He was never arrested but still, how many Caucasians here on this board can say that the same thing's happened to them that often? I'm sure not many...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oops, My last post should show this section as a quote:

They will be able to inquire about a person citizenship if they find someone hiding behind the dashboard of a car (it's happened) or find 30 people in the back of a delivery van (it's common). That would provide the "reasonable suspicion" required.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The new AZ law won't change and challenge the necessities of the Fourth Amendment. AZ Police will just have to be as tight as an oyster shell when it comes to their involvement with the bill. And if you have a natural cynicism of police in general you just have to suck it up.

The fourth amendment it seems safeguard people (including illegal immigrants) from devious prosecution whereas the evidence was obtained through illegal means (tainted), including 'illegal' police searches and seizures. The provisions of Mapp V Ohio, which is much more relevant to the new AZ enforcement law, further guarantees this protection.

Hardly a mortal sin... I can't believe you are so glib about this. Your lack of concern about the victimization of a portion of the citizens that state is unbelievable to me.

This law violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law because it unlawfully invites the racial profiling of Latinos and other people who look or sound "foreign-born." It also violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by interfering with the federal government's authority to regulate and enforce immigration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The pro-ILLEGAL ALIEN folks

For all those calling us pro-illegals, please read all the posts we have posted and you'll see that most of us are not pro-illegal aliens, we are simply against the victimization of US citizens living in Arizona. I don't think this law will pass constitutional muster in court (at least I'm hoping not) and we'll sure have more to talk about on this subject when that happens. Unfortunately, I have to get to work and won't have time to respond to everything written about my earlier post until much later. Too bad.

And using words like hypocrisy and ignorance in your post arrestpaul is not the way you should debate us. I don't know if you realize it but that's exactly the way we feel about you mixed with a pinch of other sentiments thrown in but we don't resort to name calling. So take it easy eh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They are attempting to reduce the number of ILLEGAL aliens in Arizona, unlike Los Angeles's idiotic attempted boycott that is intended to hurt business and employees in both LA and Arizona.

Sounds like you're trying to justify state's draconian measures to grill particular group of people-- regardless of their citizenship.

The law, set to take effect July 29, requires police enforcing another law to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States illegally and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

This will lead to an abusive racial profiling by police enforcement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PeaceWarrior at 08:16 AM JST - 19th May. This law violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law because it unlawfully invites the racial profiling of Latinos and other people who look or sound "foreign-born."

Equal protection? You need to look at the history and see the facts. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for the newly ancipated African Americans, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was incomplete. For example, Native Americans were excluded from American citizenship because of their tribal jurisdiction. Also not subject to American jurisdiction were foreign visitors, ambassadors, consuls, and their babies born here. The logical first step for correcting the problem is for Congress to adopt legislation clarifying the meaning of the 14th amendment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330 - You need to stop copy paste and put into your words if you can. This is boring.

The hypocrisy and ignorance of the pro-ILLEGAL alien supporters is unfathomable. The LA city council is boycotting Arizona for passing a law similar to California's own existing law. Little wonder that city and state are bankrupt.

See California Penal Code, Section 833-851.90 834b:

Better?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PeaceWarrior - The video is to establish the fact that people who look different and who speak English with an accent are already getting arrested, not just stopped, but arrested for the crime of not carrying their birth certificate. That's the reality the video is there to demonstrate. He was not picked up by ICE, ICE does not man the weigh stations. In Arizona, the weigh stations are run by Commercial Vehicle Enforcement, which is a Bureau in the Arizona department of Public Safety' Highway Patrol. They turned him over to ICE.

Your 3rd mistake was not verifying the truck drivers story - "A Valley man says he was pulled over Wednesday morning and questioned when he arrived at a weigh station for his commercial vehicle along Val Vista and the 202 freeway."

Newsflash - There are NO weigh stations along Val Vista or the 202 freeway or anywhere close by. Val Vista is a 4 lane city street and the 202 is a loop around the city.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

amerijap - Sounds like you're trying to justify state's draconian measures to grill particular group of people-- regardless of their citizenship.

Sounds like your trying to change the subject. Federal immigration laws already exist as well as the California penal code mentioned earlier. Arizona's law mirrors both. SB1070 STILL doesn't allow Arizona LEO's to stop anyone for "looking" like an ILLEGAL alien no matter how many times you say it and Arizona LEO's must STILL have a "resaonable suspicion" to pursue that particular line of questioning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jruaustralia,

"If you sincerely wants to get rid of white supremacy in the United States-- and it seems you don't-- then cut the bs."

Wha--?! White Supremacy? Where the hell did this come from? Talk about overkill. Nothing in the above discussion about White Supremacy, friend. Your imagination's going into a bit of overdrive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your 3rd mistake was not verifying the truck drivers story - "A Valley man says he was pulled over Wednesday morning and questioned when he arrived at a weigh station for his commercial vehicle along Val Vista and the 202 freeway."

Newsflash - There are NO weigh stations along Val Vista or the 202 freeway or anywhere close by. Val Vista is a 4 lane city street and the 202 is a loop around the city.

I'm on my lunch break and I wanted to thank you for the good chuckle. Much appreciated. A quick Internet search could have saved you the time it took to write your post.

From Wiki:

All jurisdictions employ the use of portable scales, allowing weigh stations to be set up at any point. Portable scales allow states to set up temporary scales for situations such as seasonal check points, temporary checkpoints on isolated roads often used by trucks, and help prevent drivers from avoiding scales at fixed locations. Portable scales may be set up at purpose built locations that are not normally manned.

So, no news flash, sorry!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul, sfjp330, et al,

You've all gone great lengths to explain that the law isn't designed to punish Arizona businesses. I'm perfectly aware of that.

What I'm asking is why not?

For years, the failed approach has been to round up illegals and send them back. We've tried beefing up the border patrols. We've tried to build walls. We've even let loons with dreams of "Red Dawn" dancing in their heads arm themselves and "patrol" the border as so-called "Minutemen" (as offensive a tribute to the real thing as I can imagine).

And for years, everyone's been standing around with one thumb up their nether-region, and one hand scratching their head, absolutely baffled that illegals still keep popping up. It's not advanced calculus, folks.

Illegals keep returning to the U.S. BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL JOBS TO BE HAD.

As long as jobs are still available and employers willing to flaunt VERY forgiving laws against hiring illegals, the number of illegals in Arizona and across the Southwest will remain steady, no matter how many ways we contrive to arrest them and send them back. they.

Why is it so ridiculously hard to get this concept to stick in your collective skulls?

I'm not saying the new law isn't strict enough. I'm saying it's the wrong law altogether, which has been the main complaint among opponents from the start.

I’m also saying that you could give the police the legal right to walk straight up to anyone who looks even remotely Hispanic, ask them for proof of citizens ship, and the power to ship non-citizens out that very moment, and it’s not going to stop them from coming back.

This isn't about forgiving illegals. It isn't about amnesty programs. It is and always has been about treating the problem at the source. We certainly can't do anything about making the Mexican economy more robust, but we can do something on our side of the fence to make the U.S. less attractive: Eliminate the jobs that tempt illegals to take far greater physical risks for a simple menial labor job than most lazy, spoiled Americans could ever imagine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul,

" . . . the pro-ILLEGAL alien supporters . . . "

Could you please refrain from discussing this like a petulant child?

I realize you’re still working through issues of having to grow up in the Age of "If you aren't with us, then you're with the [insert enemy's name here],"* but even you must be mature enough to recognize that life isn't really that black or white.

Believe it or not, one can actually oppose illegal immigration, and still be against this asinine law. Hard to fathom, I know. But gosh darn it, it's true. ;-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sucede from the union! Texas, will follow. The Stars and Bars will fly over the south again!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Equal protection? You need to look at the history and see the facts. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for the newly ancipated African Americans, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

sfjp330, for open border, PRO-ILLEGAL alien folks... anything that moves under the great blue sky's A M E R I C A N...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sucede from the union! Texas, will follow. The Stars and Bars will fly over the south again!!

America will be balkanized in a few decades time. You can bank on that!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I realize you’re still working through issues of having to grow up in the Age of "If you aren't with us, then you're with the *[insert enemy's name here]," but even you must be mature enough to recognize that life isn't really that black or white.

Talk about overdrive, LFR-again. Would you believe we're no longer under [insert your most hated guy's name here]

W A K E U P!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder why LA are excluding the water and power they buy from Arizona from their boycott? BTW Arizona buys a lot more goods and services from Califronia companies than they sell. Ready, Fire, Aim.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And for years, everyone's been standing around with one thumb up their nether-region, and one hand scratching their head, absolutely baffled that illegals still keep popping up. It's not advanced calculus, folks.Illegals keep returning to the U.S. BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL JOBS TO BE HAD.

Ah, the supply-and-demand argument. Are you aware of recent alternatives offered by the Fed. Gov to reform the country's immigration? To be specific are you aware of any Democratic efforts to resurrect the Amnesty program?

Would you support it?

I'm not saying the new law isn't strict enough. I'm saying it's the wrong law altogether, which has been the main complaint among opponents from the start.

Going back to your posts, you mentioned 'racial P R O F I L I N G' more often than anything. It's either you weren't explicit with us or you actually didn't read the AZ bill. Which one is it?

Having read the AZ law and alternatives (2006-07) here's what I think.

It's a law to beef up Fed enforcement. It is as simple as that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

techall,

"BTW Arizona buys a lot more goods and services from Califronia companies than they sell. Ready, Fire, Aim."

Meanwhile, I guess for some people, principles seem to hold greater sway over their decisions than the Almighty Dollar.

BTW, it might be better to aim first before you fire, but that's just me . . . ;-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Meanwhile, I guess for some people, principles seem to hold greater sway over their decisions than the Almighty Dollar.

Much like the Prez south of the US border-- who recently called the US F A S C I S T and R A C I S T over the Az bill, but have the audacity to come to Washington this week for more aid.

Tu `che.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jruaustralia,

That was a semi-passable effort at misdirection, but no, the president of Mexico has nothing to do with this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain -

For years, the failed approach has been to round up illegals and send them back. We've tried beefing up the border patrols. We've tried to build walls. And for years, everyone's been scratching their head that illegals still keep popping up. Illegals keep returning to the U.S. BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL JOBS TO BE HAD.

The pro-ILLEGAL alien supporters do NOT want beefed up boarder patrols or to see the wall completed. Both could have been accomplished by now if the pro-ILLEGAL alien supporters weren't continually putting up political roadblocks and failing to fully fund the efforts.

SB1070 does address businesses who hire ILLEGAL aliens. You don't think it's tough enough but it's a start and it's certainly better than going back to doing nothing at a state level.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That was a semi-passable effort at misdirection, but no, the president of Mexico has nothing to do with this.

Ouch, did I pressed your button?! Wasn't even trying LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The pro-ILLEGAL alien supporters do NOT want beefed up boarder patrols or to see the wall completed. Both could have been accomplished by now if the pro-ILLEGAL alien supporters weren't continually putting up political roadblocks and failing to fully fund the efforts.

I really don't know why people are pesky over the AZ bill (SB1070) if you actually read the bill, or a copy of its draft, the Arizona legislature have not added (or omitted) anything new, other than "the enforcement of fed. immigration laws" and to the "full extent of fed. laws". What it does is just beef up enforcement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PeaceWarrior - From Wiki: All jurisdictions employ the use of portable scales...

Wiki? Gernerally speaking, there are portable weigh pads in use through out the U.S.

Are you imagining that this truck driver was picked up at a portable weigh scale at Val Vista and the 202? There was a report of a portable scale that had been set up on the 101 in the Phoenix area a few years back but not on the 202. Val Vista is a city street lined with homes and strip malls. There is no place to queue up delivery trucks and 18-wheelers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The resolution claims that Arizona’s new law encourages racial profiling and is unconstitutional. The law, set to take effect July 29, requires police enforcing another law to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States illegally and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

Looks like someone is trying to bulldoze one's argument while overlooking what is most at stake in this resolution. Racial profiling is already occurring in several states including CA, AZ, TX, and NM. I highly suspect it is the best way to detect the undocumented immigrants hiding in these states.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain at 12:56 PM JST - 19th May You've all gone great lengths to explain that the law isn't designed to punish Arizona businesses. I'm perfectly aware of that. What I'm asking is why not?

Because majority of these illegal workers send their money back to Mexico. U.S. does not want additional instability in Mexico due to economic hardship if they start deporting in masses. The current problem of economic instablity in Mexico has magnified substantially from three years ago. The Central Bank has been forced to intervene in an "extraordinary" way to prop up the peso. Adding to the economic problem, Mexican government revenues, which is more than one-third comes from PEMEX, the state-owned monopoly oil company are declining steadily. This revenue drop is the result of lower oil prices and declining output due to longstanding PEMEX mismanagement and inefficiency. Major political and economic reforms are needed, yet recent economic turmoil has made the political price of such reforms considerably higher. All of these developments are severely impacting the price Mexican businesses and governments must pay to borrow money. Unfortunately, current ratings of Mexican debt and the attendant risk premiums probably do not fully reflect Mexico's dire straits. Mexico's ongoing political stability and economic health are critical to the prosperity and national security of the U.S. The Obama Administration has many challenges facing southern neighbor and has to adjust foreign and a domestic policy. This is some of reason why they are not going after businesess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330,

"Because majority of these illegal workers send their money back to Mexico. U.S. does not want additional instability in Mexico due to economic hardship if they start deporting in masses."

Whoaaaa . . . Wait a second here. On the one hand, you're saying Arizona wants to send a "firm" message to the federal government that it's not going to tolerate illegals in Arizona anymore, going to far as to create a law that gives police liberal excuses to check for proof citizenship of any and all people legally detained for whatever reason.

But on the other, you're saying that Arizona is so compassionately sensitive about the economic needs of communities south of the border that it doesn't want to stem the flow of U.S. funds to Mexico, for fear the sudden drop will destabilize the Mexican economy?

“We’ll send those damned illegal packing to other states or back to Mexico, because was can’t afford the strain they’re putting on our infrastructure!!”

“But we’ll only send them packing in small, controlled bursts out of respect for the fragile state of Mexico’s economy. Therefore, we won’t punish the businesses that hire illegals.”

Wow. And I really mean that. Wow. That was a truly acrobatic contrivance of a handful of barely related points to explain why Arizona won’t get tough on the employers who continue to employ illegals at no personal risk to themselves. After dozens of posts in which you attempt to hammer into the rest of us how great this law is, how serious it is, and how so much better than the federal approach it is, in the space of one paragraph, you’ve announced loud and clear that Arizona doesn’t really want a definitive end to the problem of illegal aliens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No offense, but you obviously think hefty a dose of "smart ass" is the best way to win friends and influence people.

From you, no thanks!

No offense though, but other than you yelling racial profiling, you hardly said anything new relevant to the bill (SB1070). Just the same bs repeated numerous times. So what does that make you? Insane?

LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain at 06:42 AM JST - 20th May. Wait a second here. On the one hand, you're saying Arizona wants to send a "firm" message to the federal government that it's not going to tolerate illegals in Arizona anymore, going to far as to create a law that gives police liberal excuses to check for proof citizenship of any and all people legally detained for whatever reason. But on the other, you're saying that Arizona is so compassionately sensitive about the economic needs of communities south of the border that it doesn't want to stem the flow of U.S. funds to Mexico, for fear the sudden drop will destabilize the Mexican economy?

I guess you're clueless on politics regarding this subject. They have double standards. The Arizona law will not go after most businesses, period. Why? because regarding hiring illegal immigrants, most business owner have difficulty hiring locally-based labor for certain tasks even with the recession, giving ample reasons for illegal immigrants to continue to seek work north of the border. Arizona lettuce farmers, who produce the bulk of the nation’s domestic lettuce between November and February each year, will need 40,000 laborers to hand-pick greens. Most of that lettuce is grown in Yuma County, located near the Colorado River and the U.S.-Mexico border, where a local labor pool is simply unavailable to pick lettuce. Chili growers on the east part of the state need a similar labor force. The law enforcement will leave these people alone. Do you understand? Maybe no.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Arizona lettuce farmers, who produce the bulk of the nation’s domestic lettuce between November and February each year, will need 40,000 laborers to hand-pick greens. Most of that lettuce is grown in Yuma County, located near the Colorado River and the U.S.-Mexico border, where a local labor pool is simply unavailable to pick lettuce

Had the AZ legislature able to supersede (rather than just beef up Fed laws, which the Constitution enables them to do so) the state could in fact offer not a blanket amnesty program but a targeted program for distressed industries.

They can't or that would have been unconstitutional. Now had Gov. Jan BREWER actually done that, will the same people now crying human rights, racial profiling, F A S C I S T, R A S C I S M and god-knows how many 'amendments' also shout ILLEGAL.

Probably not. Which means it's not about the law.... it's about what they want. Tough luck!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jruaustralia,

Thank you, sir. You're finally starting to get it.

"most business owner have difficulty hiring locally-based labor for certain tasks even with the recession, giving ample reasons for illegal immigrants to continue to seek work north of the border."

Which would lead most reasonable people to conclude that the new law is pointless. It only increases the police's ability to send illegals back through questionable ID checks. But it does virtually nothing to stop them from coming in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But it does virtually nothing to stop them from coming in.

Enforcing the law of the land will. Send 'em the right message as ARIZONA did!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank you, sir. You're finally starting to get it.

Ha-hahahaha

It must be cumbersome to get the right advice from someone who actually read the bill, no?

Which made me wonder, have you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jruaustralia,

The most noticeable difference between my having, yes, read the law (it's not a "bill" anymore, sparky), and you having supposedly read it is that you clearly don't seem to understand it. But again, you also place greater stock in being that wonderful smart-ass again than in actually putting any thought into your posts, so I'm not too surprised. Good luck with that. ;-D

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The most noticeable difference between my having, yes, read the law (it's not a "bill" anymore, sparky), and you having supposedly read it is that you clearly don't seem to understand it.

Wow, just wow.... despite you giving us some rather extreme and inconsistent retorts. Let's see....

Your first extended attempt to explain the law, to us, included a comparison of the AZ law and, guess what, GW's Compatriot Act?! WTH were you thinking?! Suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wire-tapping, etc.

Arguments in support of this law are frighteningly similar to arguments in support of warrantless wire-tapping, warrantless questioning by law enforcement, and suspension of habeas corpus, a la, "Well, if you've got nothing to hide, then you shouldn't be worried about being stopped."

Tsk. tsk. tsk. Michael POSNER should pick your brain next time he meets with the Chinese. *Cough

Then after someone (that's arrestpaul for you) actually blurted the name of the law (SB1070), abruptly you jumped at the conclusion that... oh well the law doesn't go far enough.

What a joke. Either you opened your mouth first without reading the law or it's an abnormal routine of yours to jump without soliciting facts.

AGAIN, other than you occupying us with the yarn of the fringe left-- you got nothing new to say. Just the same bs repeated numerous times. So what does that make you? Insane?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's called the PATRIOT Act, not the Compatriot Act. Sheesh...

" . . . you jumped at the conclusion that... oh well the law doesn't go far enough."

Nope. Never said any such thing. I said the law doesn't focus its attention where it needs to be focused, namely at businesses that hire illegals. I thought that was pretty clear.

Look, friend. You've got to give me some sort of heads up here before this continues. Does your mind make any connection at all between the words "reading" and "comprehension"? If not, just say so, and work really hard to use smaller words and shorter sentences for you. :-D

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain - " . . . you jumped at the conclusion that... oh well the law doesn't go far enough." - Nope. Never said any such thing. I said the law doesn't focus its attention where it needs to be focused, namely at businesses that hire illegals. I thought that was pretty clear.

It was clear that you think SB1070 doesn't go far enough when you said, "My point was that for as serious a problem illegal immigration is portrayed to be, proponents don't seen very serious about stopping the employers who would hire illegals." (aka Doesn't go far enough.)

SB1070 Does address the problem of businesses that knowingly hire ILLEGAL aliens.

LFRAgain - The most noticeable difference between my having, yes, read the law (it's not a "bill" anymore, sparky),

Are you suggesting that there's a difference between the wording of the "bill" and the wording of the "law"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain - "most business owner have difficulty hiring locally-based labor for certain tasks even with the recession, giving ample reasons for illegal immigrants to continue to seek work north of the border."

Which would lead most reasonable people to conclude that the new law is pointless. It only increases the police's ability to send illegals back through questionable ID checks. But it does virtually nothing to stop them from coming in.

Are you suggesting (again) that SB1070 doesn't go far enough?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain - ..... but no, the president of Mexico has nothing to do with this.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has been whining about SB1070 since its inception.

The measure, which will make it a crime under state law to be an illegal immigrant, "opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement," Calderon said. (April 26)

Sounds like Calderon thinks that existing federal laws also opens the door to intolerance.

He was whining about SB1070 again yesterday in front of the Whitehouse.

"We are and will continue to be respectful of the internal policies of the United States and its legitimate right to establish, in accordance to its Constitution, whatever laws it approves," he said, "But we will retain our firm rejection to criminalized migration so that people that work and provide things to this nation would be treated as criminals."

Imagine that, being treated as criminals just because they are in the U.S. illegally? I'm SHOCKED!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul (and jruaustralia to some degree),

"It was clear that you think SB1070 doesn't go far enough when you said, "My point was that for as serious a problem illegal immigration is portrayed to be, proponents don't seen very serious about stopping the employers who would hire illegals." (aka Doesn't go far enough.)"

Sigh... I'll say it one more time, if for no other reason than a certain soft spot for harp seals unaware of their defenselessness.

I believe -- and always have -- that the law aims at rounding up illegals, but does very little to address the reason illegals continue to -- and will continue -- to cross the border, which, as jruaustralia also pointed out, is employers who continue to hire illegals knowing that punishment for doing so is relatively minor. Of course, he may renege on that statement. He's a bit squirrelly that way.

"SB1070 Does address the problem of businesses that knowingly hire ILLEGAL aliens."

Yes, and the laws aren't much different that what was in place before. In other words, motivating businesses to stop hiring illegals wasn't a priority to Arizona lawmakers. Which makes this law a joke.

"Are you suggesting that there's a difference between the wording of the "bill" and the wording of the "law"?"

No, I'm suggesting that someone who doesn't understand something so intrinsically basic to the American political system as the difference between a bill and a law isn’t scarcely qualified to criticize anyone’s interpretation of the Constitution, much less lecture anyone on laws of any sort.

The -- how should I say this? -- blithering ignorance? that compels certain posters to think, “Bill? Law? Meh… It’s all the same thing,” is the same sort of ignorance that leads him to call the Patriot Act, one of the most sweeping pieces of federal law to have been enacted in 50 years, the COMPatriot Act. If it weren’t so gosh darn pathetically sad, I’d laugh.

It’s the same sort of ignorance that compels certain posters to claim this law is going to change everything, while simultaneously making the argument that employers will never face the full weight of the law because Arizonans unanimously agree that they’ve got to their part to help hold together the Mexican economy by making sure illegals have jobs here so they can send money back across the border.

It’s the same sort of ignorance that makes certain posters sign off on incoherent rants with phrases like, “HAHAHA!” and “LOL”, as if this were a debate via Twitter between lunch buddies in the high school cafeteria over the virtues of Playstation 3 versus the X-Box. Again, I’d laugh if it weren’t just so pathetic.

What I’m suggesting here, since I have to spell out everything for two posters in particular who seem to have less grasp of the English language than the illegals they claim to oppose, is that I don’t have time for you two anymore. You contradict yourselves constantly, barely have a grasp on the issues surrounding this law, and can’t even comprehend the written language we’re using, despite having had plenty of free time to search the Internet for definitions of literary terms like, “comparison,” “contrast,” “irony,” and, well, straightforward “statement of fact.”

While it’s been fun watching you boys channel Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb, I’m going to go find something better to do with my time, like watch paint dry. ‘Nite! :-D

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Personal attacks are not allowed plus it makes it look like your losing the debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Rut Roh! The Arizona Corporation Commission, which oversees Arizona’s electric AND water utilities and just happens to supply 25% of Los Angeles electrical power and 21% of it's water, wants to know if the LA City Council would like to "renegotiate" LA's power agreements and put their money where their mouth is (if they can find their mouth in the dark. hehehe)

(actual letter)

Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.”

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Gary Pierce

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul at 03:50 AM JST - 21st May

Another copy & paste. Can you put into your own words? Maybe you can't. Point of this letter is nothing new. Arizonans are tired of fighting with California for their water and power. California split the water in the Colorado evenly. But since they have such a high population they are always after Arizona share too. Arizona live in a desert and the water is a huge issue. This is more about the timing and rebuttal of the L.A. issue which they wanted to say for a long time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's called the PATRIOT Act, not the Compatriot Act. Sheesh...

Oh wow! IT'S IN FACT PATRIOT ACT...get over it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look, friend. You've got to give me some sort of heads up here before this continues. Does your mind make any connection at all between the words "reading" and "comprehension"?

Ho ho ho... And Michael POSTNER still should bring you to China next time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CORRECTION It's actually Michael POSNER. sheesh...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul, here's what Michelle MALKIN.com said about La Calderon's visit this week

Think about it — a foreign leader comes to the U.S., bashes a state within the U.S. for doing something that it’s well within their constitutional rights to do, and Democrats stand and cheer. This isn’t surprising but it never ceases to be amazing.

Wonderful! Pelosi, et al are probably thinking that the TEA PARTY will just have to put up with it till, well, November.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/20/calderone-bashes-arizona/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jruaustralia - While Calderon specifically mentions Arizona law, he was actually talking about the last 70 years of federal laws that allow the identification and deportation of aliens who are in the U.S. ILLEGALLY.

He considers the federal agencies ICE and the BP to be racist and Arizona is only expanding their racist policies. He doesn't care what else is in the bill.

Bottomline - Calderon, Obama, the L.A. city council and the rest of the pro-ILLEGAL alien supporters want a "pathway" (ie. amnesty) created for at least the Mexican nationals in the U.S.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330 -

Rut Roh! The Arizona Corporation Commission, which oversees Arizona’s electric AND water utilities and just happens to supply 25% of Los Angeles electrical power and 21% of it's water, wants to know if the LA City Council would like to "renegotiate" LA's power agreements and put their money where their mouth is (if they can find their mouth in the dark. hehehe)

Better?

I wasn't aware that Arizona and California split the Colorado River water evenly. That doesn't leave anything for the rest of the states along the Colorado, does it?

Southern California is considered an arrid climate. Arizona seems to have enough water to meet their own needs and still be able to supply a sizeable portion of arrid California's hot tubs and non-native palm trees.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SB 1070 said an inquiry could be made after a part of any "lawful contact.'' The new language says there first must be part of a "lawful stop, detention or arrest.'' I have read the law and understand what it meant as originally written and revised. Do you understand the difference and what it originally intended? What of the bounty that will be paid to THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM or financial awards by the court given to anyone who successfully sues agencies for not ENFORCING FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. I can’t find that one in federal immigration statute. Do you realize this provision actually compels police agencies and their officers to demand you prove you are here legally? A lawful stop can be made for reasonable suspicion. Arizona courts describe reasonable suspicion as “requiring only a minimal, objective justification based on the totality of circumstances," The law does not state what officers can consider when determining reasonable suspicion, which opens the door to broad interpretation and the potential for racial profiling. For all practical purposes all Latino Americans in Arizona will have to be aware of their status daily. An American of color, legal resident, or a person that speaks with accent will have to think twice and ask themselves will I be stopped when they walk out their front door to work, school, even to church. Yes this is separation from the mainstream and will affect the way Hispanics are treated in Arizona.

By the way. Yesterday I bought a new computer with an AMD processor not Intel. Continue to BOYCOTT ARIZONA. GO LAKERS, LIGHTS OUT SUNS. ; })-

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites