« It's Finally Time for Intervention | Main | Napolitano's Latest Gaffe... »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Uh... No, Greg. It doesn't require "non citizens to carry their documentation". It REQUIRES YOU to carry documentation at all times.

1051 states that: 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 tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

4. A valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

Doesn't say anything about non-citizens there. If you have your AzDL you are presumed not to illegal. Therefore, if you as an American Citizen DOESN'T have your id, you are presumed ILLEGAL.

Henceforth, every Arizona Citizen better carry their papers with them at all times.

That's not the way I read it, but I'm sure a court challenge will ensue.

I can't say I'm thrilled, but action must be taken and it's not something that cannot be fixed.

Actually, it CAN'T be fixed.

I addressed one point he raised. What he did not mention is the collection and sharing, the databasing, of all of our information under 11-1051 E, E.1. and E.2 which states that the State shall not be prohibited from sharing any information related to the immigration status (and what info is not related to that? None.) on ANY individual, LAWFUL or unlawful for the purposes of obtaining ANY public benefit, service, or license. That is basically any interaction with the State.

Once our data is turned over to the Feds, you CAN'T GET IT BACK. Or as us married guys say: You can't unsay something.

That can't be fixed.

So your argument in support of SB 1070 is that previous state directives had little impact?

I am not sure about your statement "Yes, it requires non citizens to carry their documentation"

Since police can demand documentation on any suspicion of being illegal, doesn't that mean everyone effectively has to carry proof of citizenship? If for some reason fearless sheriff Joe decides he has probably cause to check my ID (maybe my skin looked too brown that day), if I don't have proof, then I am going to jail until I can prove it, am I not? Do I have to carry my passport jogging?

I am still confused about the conservative argument on this: Say I find someone in Mexico I want to hire, and perhaps also rent my spare room as well. Please explain the Conservative argument as to why that person needs a special license from the government, in the form of immigration papers, to accept my job and my housing proposal.

And if one still wants to insist on this arrangement as trespassing, does this not take a fairly socialist view of property, since this visitor is on my private property by permission, but you are in effect saying the government has the right to decide who can and can't be on my property, even when that overrides the owner's permission.

I always thought Conservatives accepted the natural rights theory, that our rights as human beings flow from our humanity (or from God, depending on your taste), and are not breadcrumbs grudgingly granted to us by an all-powerful state. If so, how does the natural rights theory square with one's rights in this country being dependent on where one is born? I understand that the New Deal and the welfare state interfere with this natural rights approach to immigration, but I get the sense that Conservatives would oppose immigration or at least support the state's right to limit it even without the welfare state issue.

Some conservatives do not accept natural rights theory. They argue rights are man-made, enumerated, inferred, given and taken away...by government, not God or "nature." Rights are constructs of human relationships, defined in law and adjudicated daily. So no one has a "natural" right to live in the country of their choosing.

Free movement of goods and labor has limits: drugs, human organs, and slaves are off the table, right?

regarding the poll you cite. Rasmussen himself has admitted that 81 percent of the respondents to his poll were white. Contrast this with the fact that 30 percent of Arizona residents are Hispanic. And his poll did not ask the key question: are you OK with the cops stopping anyone who has brown skin.

Lawsuits can be filed by any Arizona citizen when there is a policy or a practice of not fully enforcing federal immigration law. A police agency not enforcing to the full extent would be a "practice" and sufficient to stimulate a lawsuit, even if that agency felt other crimes represented a greater danger to the community. This is the section of the law: "G. A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law."

A real conservative law, turning Arizona into a police State where you are presumed to be illegal unless you prove you are not. From the anti government bunch.

Since it does not appear there are any Pro-business Republicans left, only the extreme right xenophobes and tea partiers, this law will be bad for Arizona business.

Worth reading: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/04/post_2.php

I can always count on this blog to provide at least one total howler on any important issue. And I wasn't let down on this one.

The Democratic party risks alienating Hispanic voters by advocating for....UNION THUGGERY!! Yikes!

The only place that union thuggery bothers anyone is on extreme right wing websites. Unions have made a miraculous resurgence in the past couple of years, as the all purpose evil liberal boogieman of the hardcore right. Why exactly would Hispanic voters be driven from the Democratic party by union thuggery? They hardly even exist in Arizona.

Oh, that's right, Hispanics hate unions. They hate them so much that union organizer Antonio Villaraigosa was elected mayor of Los Angeles.

Perhaps Mr. Patterson has forgotten that Hispanic political hero Cesar Chavez was...well, okay, he was, umm, ah, yes, a union leader. Strikes, boycotts, picket lines, that sorta stuff. Kind of like the governor of Virginia forgot that slavery was, well, okay, sort of maybe just a little bit of an issue during the Confederacy. Sort of.

Union thuggery is only a boogieman to those living in right wing fantasyland. If you wish to carry your fantasy world so far as to project your fantasies onto entire ethnic populations in this country, that's your choice. Living in fantasy land worked well for you during the Bush years. If you want to keep living there, the choice is yours.

As to the piece of hateful racist garbage our governor just signed, it will drive Hispanics voters away from the Republican party and drive them out to the polls in November. Just when the Republicans were counting on a low voter turnout for a repeat of 1994. As it was expressed on this blog, "those people won't be voting this time." From the guy who told us Obama was "unelectable no matter how many times he disowns his white grandmother."

News flash: Those people will be voting this time. Rassmussen polls are always deliberately skewed to the right, mostly by interviewing only white people in conservative areas. Bet on a big turnout and a big loss for the GOP.

And watch out for those union thugs next time you shop at Safeway and Fry's. They terrify me.

"those people will be voting this time."

I wasn't aware that illegal immigrants were ALLOWED to vote...


You are wrong, picture this 4 Latino men in a
89 Chevvy with a Mexican flag decal on the back bumper. Can an officer stop them on suspicion of being in the country Illegally ?
answer yes and if someone on the street sees the stop and is not satisfied with the outcome that someone, with a phone camera takes pictures and sues. Far fetched maybe but possible. Greg it's the legalization of the Chandler roundup.

Jay Lawrence

Mr. Lawrence -- I can't speak for Greg, but for me this is an easy one: no, because there is no reasonable suspicion. Do you think I am wrong? If so, why?

Jack - words matter. Allowing a civil suit "where there is a policy or a practice," as you stated, is different from allowing suit when an entity "adopts or implements a policy or practice . . . ."

I'm not saying someone won't try it. I'm saying it will be dismissed if it's anything like the ridiculous hypothetical situations we've been hearing from those against the bill.

Jay - I took crim pro and did well in it. You're way off. As for your cell-phone-camera observer -- even further off.

Listen, amigos, Congress has authority to enact laws in certain areas, including immigration. This is one of those areas in which Congress "occupies the field." Where that is the case, a state can't enact laws to go beyond what Congress has done. From what I have seen, this does not go beyond the federal immigration laws but mirrors and even cites to them. There's truly nothing new here, so I am having a difficult time with all of the fear-mongering going on. My secretary came in this morning all upset because her sister-in-law is half hispanic, and she's afraid of what the police are going to do to her. Even though she is a democrat and voted for Obama, I was able to set her straight for the most part :-)

Not to give anyone any ideas, but the only constitutional challenge I can think of (other than "Congress occupies the field") is that this law somehow impinges on the authority to deal with issues of foreign policy and foreign relations, which is vested in the Executive branch. This is a reach, but one might point to the fact that the Mexican government is throwing a hissy fit about the bill (now law).

In the end, I think certain portions could have been drafted a little better, but I highly doubt any of the early challenges to the law will be successful. We'll have to see what happens over time.

IDP : IDP Featured Cases
has lots of stories of American citizens jailed because they didn't provide ID to the local, state, or federal police ...

Why does it always take two conservatives to balance one liberal on these TV panel discussions? Is it because conservatives only have half a brain?

yes, how fair is it on Channel 12's part to have two conservatives -- one of them particularly smug -- on a panel double-teaming one Democrat. Geez, I thought I was watching Fox news.

Hi Greg,
I taped the show because I knew it was going to be good but it even exceeded my expectations. I had all my family over to watch it. The only person that we thought had half a brain (only because he couldn't logically make his case) was the democrat. Don't forget he is on some sort of national board. How many times did he remind us of that? Like we really care. He even took your bait at the end of the show to tell us again. And you just sat there like the cat who just ate the canary! That was great. The most hilarious part was when you said "You couldn't even shut down Pruitts." We all started laughing so hard and my brother said now that is something I could watch again so we did a few times and were laughing our heads off. My brother said if that was a boxing match they would have called the fight. Are you always this funny? I figured the line up was two against two. You've got to count Braham as one on the left don't you? He is totally transparently left wing. You need to get that clip up on your website. It was too good.


You are wrong, picture this 4 Latino men in a
89 Chevvy with a Mexican flag decal on the back bumper. Can an officer stop them on suspicion of being in the country Illegally ?
answer yes and if someone on the street sees the stop and is not satisfied with the outcome that someone, with a phone camera takes pictures and sues. Far fetched maybe but possible. Greg it's the legalization of the Chandler roundup.

If you are driving a vehicle, you are subject to search and/or being pulled over by the LEOs...driving is a PRIVILEGE given by the state, not a RIGHT.

Also, if you are in front of a Home Depot solicting employment w/o the property owner's permission...you are LOITERING, which is ILLEGAL.

The comments to this entry are closed.