My responses are all encapsulated above. There is nothing new here. Racially profiling American Citizens who look brown does nothing to stop illegal immigration. Brewer’s contention that the law bans racial profiling is laughable in its face, as several law enforcement agencies and the cities of Tucson and Flagstaff have noted.

I live in southern Arizona, less than 60 miles from the border. I am very well aware of the issues and problems. When Brewer calls it terrorism, well, I think that speaks to all her credibility as much as anything else. Yes, we have problems brought about by illegal immigration and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. But we are not under a terrorist’s siege as the teapartier wing would have you believe. Believe it or not, we drive darkened highways at night, we walk the streets after dark, and as I said: the most prominent murders of US citizens in Southern Arizona connected with the illegal immigration controversy was a family of US citizens whose home was invaded by self-styled minutemen militia members.

I thought this was a good observation. Click through and check out the graphs.

In 1970, Europeans still made up 60 percent of all immigrants; now their proportion is down to 13 percent. And it isn’t just Mexicans who have increased their share of the immigrant population, it’s also Asians, Africans, and, well, pretty much everyone but Europeans (and Canadians — their share is down as well).

Among the many effects of these changing patterns is that if you’re a white person, most immigrants used to look like you, but now they don’t, which could certainly heighten the perception that you’re country is being “taken” from you, and you want it back.

What is your response to Jan Brewer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLgZ1LWLlko

I’m guessing you don’t have one, or that your response is about as lame as the President’s, because you have said as much that you want enforcement, but don’t have anything to really suggest and now that you have more enforcement, you’re up in arms about it. This is the same silly hand wringing that’s been going on in Washington for about 20 years now. The Federal government obviously doesn’t have a solution, and it’s equally obvious that neither do you.

This law is racist, and anyone supporting it is a racist. Doesn’t get much simpler than that, and all your hand waving and multi-paragraph apologism isn’t gonna change what horrible human beings you are.

I believe this legislation is unconstitutional for reasons already outlined by others, but I don’t want to debate that with you.

Apologies if I am wrong in assuming that you do something akin to a street patrol. If correct, from that perspective, don’t you see a problem that this legislation only punishes illegal aliens, and not the employers that hire them? How can the tide be stopped when there is always work to be found?

One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned in any detail is the provision of forced enforcement. Look at this portion of the enforcement changes:

13 ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
15 immigration laws; indemnification
27 I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
28 OFFICER’S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.

What would be considered bad faith on the part of an officer? Does it mean he is only in danger of losing personal assets if following a higher up’s policy of non-enforcement? Does it mean not verifying citizenship of the guy on his beat that he sees every day for the last 8 years that he knows is illegal? Can one act of kindness cost him his home?

I’m finding myself unable to properly convey how wrong-headed this is to me. If this is acceptable to you or I’ve missed some crucial point (total layperson in all things legal) please explain. Without the intent of the bad faith clause defined, I would never be an officer in AZ. Thanks in advance.

Make it an economic disadvantage – a real one – and it will stop.”

Hell, I say go beyond that. More than x number of illegal workers on a random spot check and your business license is revoked. I say x number because 1 or two might be clever cons or mistakes. If you’re a business of one person, heavy heavy fine instead. Put people out of business who hire illegals. Hell, give tax CREDITS to businesses that can prove all their workers are legal citizens or documented legal aliens.

Why not make part of getting a credit check proving your citizen status? And then require all utilites (water, gas, cable, telephone, internet, electricity, etc) and landlords to run this check? Heavy fines for noncompliance.

There are all kinds of regulatory agencies surrounding business, why not add citizen status checks as part of their regulatory responsibilities?

Timothy, this is just plain insane

” And really, really…. it’s hard to blame someone for taking what they see to be a solution when that’s the only item on the table.”

You sit at a different table!
I’m now concerned for your safety Tim. I hope you’re never faced with the prospect of thirst and someone has just cleaned with bleach and left the bottle on the table.

All joking aside I really question the mental state of someone who says “this is the only idea, so lets run with it.” Ideas, actions, should be considered on MERIT not on how many other options there are. That’s a rationalization, and a poor one. It’s often the excuse people give for horrible, and completely stupid actions, a way of avoiding responsibility “it’s the only idea anyone came up with!”

As I have mentioned before, this problem didn’t happen overnight and it’s not going to be solved overnight. The rational, CONSTITUTIONAL, fair way to handle this is going to take time. In our why-does-my-microwave-popcorn-take-so-long society, that’s hard to grasp, but it’s important. This Quick Fix strategies are ALWAYS A BAD idea and almost certain to make the problem worse, or create new and more interesting problems.

More on the Arizona Law: Checking the Text

“Lawful contact” does not apply solely to law enforcement but to any “agency” of “the state, or a county, city, town or other political subdivision,” as enumerated in the law. If the drafters had wanted the law to apply only when a police officer had already come into contact with an individual because of a separate and distinct civil or criminal violation, they could have said so. If that had been their intent, they would have had no reason to include a provision for lawful contact by officials of all agencies of the state, county, local, and other political subdivisions. The list is all-inclusive because the law envisions officials from all public agencies — schools, hospitals, social services, etc. — having the right to demand proof of legal residence any time the official has “reasonable suspicion” that the person is an illegal immigrant.

So not only are we expanding police powers here, we’re extending police powers to people who are not law enforcement officers! That’s just dandy..

…as the Center for Equal Opportunity’s studies on racial preferences in college admissions have definitively shown, whenever race is taken into account — even as one of many factors — it always becomes the deciding factor. And it will here as well. We conservatives can’t have it both ways: either we’re for race-neutral justice or we’re not. We can’t be against using race when it helps minorities but for it when it harms them — at least not without legitimate criticism as to our motives.

Insightful juxtaposition.

Baseball alarmed by Arizona immigration law

“Why would you bring your passport and visa with you?”

Currently, players don’t. One major league executive said his team’s director of minor league operations collects the passports of foreign players and keeps them in a safe at the team’s minor league facility. The policy is in place so the teenage players don’t lose the paperwork, which includes a P Visa that the government issues to “internationally recognized entertainers or athletes.”

It could have an impact on the All-Star game and reverse the trend of spring training moving to AZ.

1979. A lifetime ago, and I would wonder why a man being seen in that manner, wouldn’t just say who he was and be done with it.
Getting belligerent or defiant with police is a guarantee you’re going to make trouble for yourself, however innocent you might be of anything suspicious.
A police officer HAS to inquire, IF only to satisfy his own curiosity. He might be wrong, but he HAS to investigate, just in case.

Being ASKED about who he was, wasn’t unreasonable for a policemen to do to that man.
Expecting that you don’t look MORE suspicious when you respond that way, isn’t.

Give me a break.

What about the presumption of innocence? I shouldn’t have to constantly prove my legitimacy to every nosy officer that comes across me. Especially considering the time this occurred, what if this was an anti-gay cop with an axe to grind, and a list of known homosexuals he wanted to make miserable? I don’t owe the police anything unless they’ve got a valid reason to be interested. Simply existing in an area where there’s crime is not a valid reason.