E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Damian Dovarganes / AP
Members of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles hold a rally in response to the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on Arizona's immigration law, outside the Los Angeles Federal Court building on Monday.
The “show me your papers” provision of Arizona’s immigration law that was left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to wind up in a familiar place – back in the courtroom.
The nation’s top justices on Monday struck down three sections of SB 1070 but unanimously upheld the most-discussed provision: Section 2(B) requires police to check the immigration status of people they stop, detain or arrest for other legitimate reasons “if there’s reasonable suspicion” the person is in the country illegally.
But exactly how local police will go about enforcing that provision is raising more questions than answers. Enforcement had been put on hold pending the Supreme Court decision; lower courts must lift the injunction before it can take effect.
Even the Supreme Court justices hinted that they expect the provision to be legally challenged again.
“There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume 2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law,” the high court said.
The Supreme Court declared three parts of Arizona's immigration law unconstitutional, but unanimously upheld the most controversial part. Now the high court is expected to make a ruling on "Obamacare" on Thursday. NBC's Pete Williams reports and NBC's Chuck Todd and Professor Noah Feldman weigh in.
“This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”
The American Civil Liberties Union says it is exploring legal challenges to keep “show me your papers” from ever taking effect.
“The Supreme Court vacated the injunction against it but took pains to point out the potential constitutional problems that are inherent in Section 2(B) and drew a firm line in the sand that the state cannot cross,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. “We are going to be in court bringing new claims and evidence to stop 2(B) again.”
Among the possible claims are that the provision violates the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures and that it invites racial profiling, ACLU officials say.
Joe Rubio, lead organizer for the Arizona Interfaith Network, a coalition of religious groups that opposed SB 1070, said the provision “leaves a nebulous area” if it goes into effect.
MSNBC's Thomas Roberts talks to NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams and Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County, Ariz., shown here, about the ripple effect of the Supreme Court's ruling.
“It’s going to be important that the state monitors very closely how police deal with immigrants during regular stops and make sure racial profiling does not occur,” Rubio said.
“I think we’re going to have a few months here where people are suspending judgment to see how it’s going to be implemented.”
Jim Gilchrist, founder and president of the Minuteman Project, an anti-illegal immigration group that recruits volunteers to patrol the U.S. border with Mexico, said the Supreme Court decision “left vague” the fate of enforcement of immigration laws by local police.
“Police will be able to ask (about immigration status); however, that’s all they can do,” he said.
“Nobody’s really getting serious about this. Everybody keeps kicking the ball around the court.”
The interpretation of Section 2(B) also could put law officers in a precarious bind. There are no written instructions on how long local police must wait for federal immigration officials to respond, for example, when they encounter someone they suspect is illegal. And immigration checks could open police up to accusations of racial profiling.
"Talk about 'no win' - if they find the person is not in authorized status, what do they do? Hold them for ICE which doesn't want them? Charge them with some state crime?" said Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney who has has testified before Congress on immigration, homeland security and military issues.
"If they make a mistake, they get sued. If they make too many mistakes, the rest of the statute gets enjoined as unconstitutional as enforced."
"We're going to get sued if we do. We're going to get sued if we don't. That's a terrible position to put law enforcement officers in," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, whose territory covers much of southern Arizona, told The Associated Press.
Tucson police Chief Roberto Villasenor told the AP he estimates the statute will result in 50,000 additional calls a year to federal immigration authorities in his city alone.
Romney pledges immigration reform, wants more state 'latitude'
Suspects for minor crimes like shoplifting or vandalism, who would normally be released with a citation, must be booked into custody if immigration authorities "don't answer the phone, they never call us back after we talk to them or whatever," Villasenor said.
The Department of Homeland Security acknowledges that the provision raises the possibility that its offices might be flooded by calls for verification checks.
“The Court’s decision not to strike down Section 2 at this time will make DHS’ work more challenging,” DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a statement.
Jon Feere, of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based think tank that advocates for limited legal immigration, suggested that enforcement will ultimately lead to tougher immigration laws once Congress or the courts are forced to act definitively.
“There will now be an extensive record every time Arizona contacts ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) about an illegal alien detained by local law enforcement. When the White House inevitably refuses to take an illegal alien into custody, forcing Arizona to release the alien back out onto the streets, it will become a national story if the alien goes on to commit a serious crime. Lax federal enforcement of immigration laws will be to blame,” he wrote in a blog post.
Five other states have passed laws similar to Arizona’s -- Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.
The ACLU says it has raised nearly $8.8 million in a special fund to challenge “show me your papers” laws in Arizona and those other states. And it’s ready to go to court again.
“If state governments enact new immigration bills, we say bring it on, we will see them in court,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said Monday.
The Justice Department has set up a federal hotline for the public to report potential civil rights concerns regarding the Arizona law. The phone number is 1-855-353-1010. The email is: SB1070(at)usdoj.gov.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Arizona has the right idea, but the wrong methodology. I've posted this elsewhere, but feel compelled to say it again: Make e-verify mandatory and "show your papers" before being allowed any state benefits. People who can't get jobs or enroll their kids in school or collect welfare aren't going to hang around because they won't survive here.
Chasing them down and throwing them out is expensive and ineffective. They just come back. Kill the reasons being in the US is so attractive and then you'll solve the illegal immigration problem, and far more cheaply than stationing troops on the border or hiring more ICE.
I agree completely! They'll self-deport if the job/education/healthcare magnet is not there. Also, the law needs to be changed so that their babies aren't automatically American citizens who then collect Welfare. As a California resident, I've seen what illegals have done to this State. We're broke but still paying benefits to illegals and allowing them to take jobs that Americans would take. This has to change and quickly. Oblamer needs to be taken to task for turning his back on AZ and thumbing his nose at the SCOTUS with his new edict that his administration will no longer take deportation calls from ICE. He's shredding our Constitution and doing everything in his power to buy votes and he'll still lose.
AG99
The e-verify solution seems so obvious. I am sure with today's technology we can make the check just a matter of a few keystrokes on a iPhone or Blackberry. State and local police have no difficulty checking on a driver's license p.d.q. and the civil libertarians don't bleat about that too much.
SCOTUS has SPOKEN.
So, what do these "protesters" want ? The SCOTUS to overturn their own decision ?
I have a better idea....have the "protesters" go back to their home country and solicit changes to their country's immigration laws.....and they can start in Mexico.
Wait a minute....Mr. Obama has directed DHS to force ICE to NOT ACCEPT into custody those individuals identified as being Illegal Aliens (Immigrants) in Arizona and who are in the United States of America ILLEGALLY.
Wait another minute.....there are Federal Immigration laws which are supposed to be controlled by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. If a person is in the United States ILLEGALLY, they are breaking FEDERAL LAWS. And Mr. Obama is now saying they can break FEDERAL LAWS.
So....which law(s) will Mr. Obama say we don't need anymore ? Well, DOMA is one. Sanctuary City enforcement is another. Oh, I get it......next will be VOTER I.D. State laws.
There is NO database of American citizens that can be checked. Period. This is the major hangup in enforcing immigration policy more widely.
The only illegal immigrants that Obama has directed his administration to stop deporting are ones who were brought as children, through no fault of their own, have no criminal history, and are in the military or attending higher education.
That is hardly all of them. He has, in no way, stopped deporting illegal immigrants.
FrugalDemocrat: Does not matter no other country would recognize that so why should we?
I think President Obama and everyone else that thinks the illegals should be allowed to stay in the USA should
1) Allow the illegals to use their social security number for employment and anything else it is needed for
2) Let them live or squat on their property that way they can put them on their auto insurance policy
3) Pay for their medical and dental treatment
I am sure there are others that I have missed.
We should have big billboards at all of the boarder towns with a list of social security numbers (such as Obama's and everyone else in favor of illegal immigration) for the people illegally entering the USA to use. I sure don't want them using mine, my sons, my mothers, my deceased fathers or any of my family and friends and I am sure there are many of you out there not wanting them to use yours either.
"The American Civil Liberties Union says it is exploring legal challenges to keep “show me your papers” from ever taking effect."
So the Supreme Court was UNANIMOUS in saying that part was constitutional, but the ACLU will still try to find a way to block it?
What part does the ACLU not understand?
I don't see what unreasonable for police to check your citizenship status when they have already stopped you for "other legitimate reasons"... as long as that reason is legitimate and not because your brown.
If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.
I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be squatting here today.
‘ Cause the flag still stands for free stuff,
and they can’t take that away.
And I’m proud to be a Mexican,
where at least I get stuff for free.
And I wont forget the gringos who died,
on whose graves I take a pee.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and march in an immigration rally.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless Obammy
Here it is people the president of the United States stands up in front of its citizens. Then publicly tells the citizens of this country that there is a group of illegal criminals in this country breaking the law. He then tells them that they do not have to obey the law. At no time does he explain how this could be constitutionally allowed. Face it people we have a president who has no respect for the citizens of this country. We have states in this country along the Mexican border that are struggling greatly with crime, financial duress, and educational issues. I myself have family in one of the states and their lives have been affected negatively by these illegal criminals. We have a border guard, federal employee killed most likely because of this illegal criminal situation. Our president is more concerned about lawbreakers and he is our own federal employees and citizens. What part of this man must be voted out in November don't people get.
Obama is not getting my vote after kicking AZ to the curb on using the Federal Database system to check criminal backgrounds as well as citizenship status. He'll be at the border shaking the hands of all the illegals crossing while he hands each of them Campaign buttons, with a big @!$%# eating grin.
Isn't it odd how our Government goes out of their way to protect illegal aliens (who already committed their first crime by entering the U.S. illegally), while the Government, Congress, Police Force, etc. fly drones over our homes without reasonable cause, make laws not to feed the homeless people, cut back unemployment severely, have done little to create new jobs, writes laws providing for the wealthy and Corporate elites, cuts back on Medicaid for the poor, prosecute to few elites and corporations for crimes or illegal actions, allows the wealthy elite corporates to steal elections (It's like they get a second chance to vote just because they have the money, and the elite opinions perhaps may not coincide within their own companies' workers' opinions), not provided healthcare due to lack of funds or an existing illness, allows Congressman to get just a slap on the hand for not paying their own taxes while a regular citizen may get thrown in jail or have their property confiscated, etc. etc.?????? It gives the impression that illegal aliens receive more benefits than do the working U.S. citizens (for those fortunate enough to find a less than satisfactory job with low paying wages). And then, the Govt. allows corrupt mortgage companies to take away homes illegally during a Recession that the Corporate elites and the gambling hedge fund crooks created. Oh, people can make complaints, but do they ever hear back from the Government officials???? Amazing!!! It pays to be an elite, or an illegal alien. Damned be those in between who must pay through more taxes (cities, states, and National) to support those two groups, or to fill in for the missing money not provided with the elite tax exemptions.
Could they at least protest in english?
From the article: Among the possible claims are that the provision violates the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures and that it invites racial profiling, ACLU officials say.
Well the ACLU has real job on their hands, because ICE and Border Patrol agents can stop people they suspect of being in the country illegally an ask them to "show me your papers".
What would the ACLU have these agents do? Sit behind a desk all day?
GermanGem...protest in English....are you kidding? Apparently you haven't seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM9uH4XgOmI
These people have a long-term agenda, and it is not in the best interest of America.
Basically we're legalizing illegal immigration so why bother calling it illegal anymore? Why bother having borders at all?
Just another nail in Obama's coffin.
There is little difference between what Hitler and his Nazis did in Europe, and what Latinos are trying to do to the United States.
hs- I was being sarcastic. And don't worry, I know full well whats going on, and its sickening. Americans that are able to get out of the U.S. ARE, or, like myself, are planning to. Its realy sad. I think it is too late to save America.
U.S. citizens are supposed to carry IDs, especially if they are driving; so why shouldn't people who are NOT U.S. citizens have to provide their visas?
Rather then Deport the illegals, Arizona should fly them to Washington DC and let them go.
Make it a local problem from Washington. Arizona would not be deporting them, and they are still able to reside in the United States. This should not affect any immigraion issues since they are still in the U.S.
"Make e-verify mandatory"
The GOP and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are AGAINST E-Verify.
http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2008/december/us-chamber-lawsuit-challenges-massive-extension-e-verify-program-federa
AG99: Truer words have never been spoken. You hit the nail right on the head
This life-long Democrat WILL NOT be voting for Obama after his announcement that he will unilaterally grant rewards and special treatment incident to immigration lawbreaking! Americans across the political spectrum support the State of Arizona in their desperation to have the immgration laws enforced. If the Federal government refuses to enforce basic federal law, the states must because of the extraordinary costs of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BEING IMPOSED UPON THEM! O will lose in November 2012 because he has disgustingly elected to embrace the immigration lawbreakers and their insufferable advocates over and at the expense of American citizens and LEGAL immgrants!
A GOVERNMENT WHICH REFUSES TO ENFORCE ITS OWN LAWS IS INTOLERABLE!
What AG99 proposes is what the Republicans have been blocking ever since illegal immigration has become an issue. It would hurt cheap labor for businesses. They want the cheap labor but don't want to pay the other benefits. As I've stated before, if you cut off the money the only ones that would be crossing the border would be the drug smugglers. With those you shoot on the spot.
Remember all those movies where they made it all scary that authoritarian states could stop you anytime and make you show your "papers": Nazi Germany, pre-capitalist China, USSR. Gulags where no charges ever had to be brought against you, just held indefinitely. Ah, good peeps. Good times.
Sullyness-- there is no law under current discussion here that permits any person to be "held indefinitely" as you falsely state. I surmise that you have no other support for your position, so you resort to lies and subterfuge about the Arizona legislation! Intellectual dishonesty personified!
Don't we American's show our papers? How many times do you give a teller your driver license to get money out of an account or show your driver license to cash a check at the grocery store. Heck, get pulled over by the police and it is Driver License, Registration and Proof of Insurance. How is this not showing our papers? I think it only affects those who have no papers. These people drive cars without licenses, car insurance or their car being registrated.
I live in Las Vegas and right after this decision they had an article in the newspaper and how the decision is reinforcing a bunch of illegals to return. Some are returning also because they are finding it harder to find jobs in the area plus the cost of living is more than it is in Mexico. The reporter was out interviewing illegals and they were saying that the standard of living for them was better for them in Mexico but before the economy went bad they could easily earn some good money and send a lot down to Mexico. The Mexican consulate is noticing an increase of Mexican nationals that are in the U.S. illegally trying to obtain citizenship for their children that were born here in the US as the children are returning to Mexico with them. They won't get citizenship to be here in the US legally but they are getting the paperwork done for their children to legally enter Mexico. These children that are born here in the U.S. are U.S. citizens and they are finding a lot of them can't speak any Spanish or if they can it is very weak and the article said that it will hurt the child as in Mexico the school system mainly instructs in Spanish so these children are going to fall behind. What is sad is here in the U.S. teachers have to teach the children how to speak English and the schools have to provide aids that can speak Spanish so that these children don't fall behind.
Our own Supreme Court years ago said that our schools here in the U.S. can't deny children that are here illegally an education. Our schools are required to provide classroom aids to help these children and also to be able to interpret lessons to them. Also documents that are provided in English have to be interpreted into Spanish or whatever other language the parents speak as the schools are required to do this at the cost to taxpayer. I know for a fact that a lot of stuff that our schools are legally required to do don't occur in schools south of the border. My sister went to live with my dad when he was opening a business and my sister could either learn go to the public schools where she would be required to speak Spanish or my dad could enroll here in a private school that was owned and operated by an United States company.
A driver's license isn't your "papers". That's the drivers license that you and every other 'Mercan have. Having to carry papers which say "I'm a for'ner" is embarrassing and intimidating, especially given some people's attitudes toward immigrants. My wife is from Europe and when we fly domestically, for ID we only show her drivers license to TSA because it's demeaning and intimidating to let one of them know you're a for'ner. You'd know you're making a horrible comparison if you had to walk in my family's shoes.
The provision wasn't "upheld," it was deferred to a later case. There is a HUGE difference.
ag99: Actually, there is a lot more that needs to be done. It's clear that the Obama administration doesn't believe in court decisions, doesn't believe in following the laws set forth by Congress and doesn't believe that it has do anything other than what he wants to do. Really, 3 hours after the Supreme Court decision the Obama administration announces that the agreement with Arizona providing for Arizona to verify legality is declared by Obama as being null and void. So, they have unilaterally declared the provision upheld by the court to be of such minor importance that they are going to ignore it. I know there are libs who are happy about all this, but my question is: Why? Does the rule of law prove to be too cumbersome for you? Do you really want the country to dissolve into anarchy? Actually, I suspect that you view all politics as a football game. The only objective is to win. You've decided to support the Democratic Party so anything the Democratic Party does is of no consequence to you as long as they win. Talk about shallow and dumb!
ag99, I'd go further than you would. I would require all schools seeking any form of state apportionment aid from the state to provide the state with copies the supporting papers of all students that they are claiming such funds for. I'd also provide penalties for all school districts that file fraudulent claims. I'd provide the same type of provision for all payments being made out of the state coffers for any and all state benefits. I'd further provide that if all claims for benefits where the applicants can not establish that they are a legal citizen of the United States and and legal resident of Arizona to be denied any and all benefits unless the federal government provides direct verification to the state of their legal status in the country. Are there going to be people that will be wrongfully denied benefits? As long as the Obama administration continues it's current lawless attitude, then the answer is yes! The blame is then squarely on Obama!
The fact is that attorneys are great at looking at what the law and the court decision actually says and can develop wording that gets around that. Right now if I were Arizona I'd set up, either through the Governor or legislature or wherever else they legally can do it, a system that holds someone in jail who can't establish that they are legally in the country and have committed a crime, a system that will hold all such people in jail as long as possible until the federal government provides information on their legal status.
I'd also start turning down all federal grants, especially those that have strings attached. I also wouldn't cooperate with any federal investigations. In other words, I'd assert Arizona's sovereignty. If the federal government wants to provide food stamps to people, let them do it themselves.
Obama would get absolutely zero cooperation. After all, he has turned into public enemy number 1 and is doing everything he can to destroy this country and he should be knocked off his horse at every opportunity.
I had to show my birth certificate when I got my first driver's license. Doesn't that happen these days? Just asking. It seems to me that a driver's license should be "papers" for most Americans IF such is the case. People without "papers" shouldn't be able to get a state driver's license and cops should be able to tell if a driver's license is fake (at least they used to be able to).
Toasty: the provision was "upheld".
Write a crap law, that constitutional scholars all warned was flawed for political gain and major parts of it get struck down. The parts that remain are so poorly crafted that it will cost Arizona millions to defend it in court. This from a state that just a two years ago was contemplating selling their state house to pay the bills. Arizonians must be freaking stupid to fall for this. They get you all enraged and let you think they are actually doing something, all the while they know that it's a horse and pony show.
The funny part is that the Obama administration has far outstripped the Bush adminstration in deportation of illegal aliens.
I know this is going against the crowd out here but let me say it anyway.
I think the laws of humanity should supercede legal-or-illegal conversation.
Wherever money is flowing freely, why can't people? I kind of agree that the government provided benefits should be made tougher but i don't think they all should be done away with. A simple example is - infant care programs. It is so much better (i.e. cost effective as well as establishing basic health) for an infant than for an adult. So the government assistance there is actually saving money in the long term.
Also I do not believe that people come here to get freebies? That's quite insulting actually. Any immigrant - legal or illegal - goes through similar crucible of life and it is insulting to entire immigrants to suggest that immigration happens because of freebies.
The problem i have with the illegal rights activists is their attitude. They acknowledge that illegals have broken the law, but feels they are justified. They either had to get paid under the table or steal someone's SS# in order to make a living. This means they either haven't paid any taxes to the gov't or they are paying but using someone else's identity, also opening the possibility that they are taking out loans on that person's credit and could potentially ruin it.
Now on to their poor children that got dragged to the US at a young age. The taxes their parents didn't pay were used to cover their primary education in classrooms that are already too full. Instead of applying for citizenship like their parents never did, they demand leniency on deportation AND want work visas. Forget about those who have been waiting for years outside of the country, let's just put these kids to the front of the line!!!
Why? What are we making up for, exactly? Are we trying to compensate them for the years of free benefits and education that we've already provided to them? And what are we getting from their parents? Cause it sure as hell isn't an apology for the numerous laws that were broken in order for them to have a better life! But they don't have any shame in their crimes, because they think they were justified in committing them!!
What about the struggling, law abiding folks who are being denied unemployment, health coverage, loans and scholarships? Do they have to act like parasites just to get some free gov't support?
That's not civil rights, people. That is what is called a false sense of entitlement and nothing more.
@Larry The democrats see them as a voting block to keep them and their agenda in power. When all these anchor babies come of voting age their will only be one party left. They are grooming them as swing votes. Politicians just see votes no matter what it will cost us,,the people.
PJ,
you have fun in your little utopian, open border country with no system of identification, no immigration regulations and no tax enforcement and tell me how long it takes for your gov't funding to dry up, crime to skyrocket then send us a post card from the most chaotic union in the world.
That kind of idealism is not realistic. There is not a single country in western society that does not have immigration laws or system of identification. If you don't know who they are, where they are or that they even exist then not only can you not collect taxes, but you can't determine where the funds should go that those taxes contribute to.
When you have a large number of people taking from society but not giving back, that is called a freebie. If you and I are paying for the education of all children in your state but the parents of a large % of those children aren't paying a dime to the system, that is called a free education. When an immigrant et to not only gain entry, but make a living without the obligation of going through the immigration process and paying fees then they are coming here for free.
So no, they aren't coming here for freebies. Coming here the honest, legal way isn't free at all. Neither is staying here. They are SNEAKING over for freebies.
Why on Earth do we even have a Supreme Court, when they can't even cover ALL issues at one time? They make a ruling, but expect it too wind its way back through the court system? WTF?
AngelicaS: The subtle hint there was a place like Gitmo where you can be held without charge, for an indefinite period of time. Say what you want about the mostly scumbags that are there, but it's not a trivial precedent to hold people without charge. It's a steep, slippery slope to say, "it's OK to demand proof of citizenship at random, and detain people without charge as long as it's the 'right' people."
So, actually, I don't have a problem with checking citizenship of a person stopped for a suspected crime. The real issue I see is law enforcement given the green light to randomly harass whoever they like. Again, you can claim "they won't do it to people who don't deserve it," but we've seen this movie before. This is why the SCOTUS said they would have to review after the law goes into effect: to see how it's actually enforced.
@lolly - let me tell you what is a freebie -
Rescuing all these too big to fail banks was a freebie.
Giving billions in contracts to Haliburton is a freebie.
Doing with dividend gains tax is a freebie.
Keeping your money in offshore accounts and not paying US taxes is a freebie
Abolishing estate tax would be a freebie.
Yes - it is quite possible that immigrants may be getting benefits they don't deserve. But immigration is a good thing for USA. It is what will keep this country on growth trajectory. Those who complain against immigration - are speaking out of frustration. Frustration out of the fear of losing out in the race of globalization that is NOT working for them.
We need to figure out how globalization works positively for everybody and not just for a few big cats with their cathouses in cayman islands.
I don't understand this decision. If the Arizona authorities may stop and investigate suspects and they do determine the person may be or actually is an illegal immigrant what do the police do at that point? Arrest the person? Turn him over to the Feds? Issue a summons to appear in court? What is the purpose of determining if people are here illegally if nothing happens when you are caught?
Thanks to Obama's latest edict, there's nothing they can do. Once they determine that the person is illegal, the Feds won't do anything to deport the person. Oblamer needs to be challenged on his edict in direct opposition to the SCOTUS decision.
Easy solution- drive them back to the border, put them in the human catapult & throw them back over the fence. If they're not going to enter the country legally then they need to leave, plain & simple. And if they have a baby here, tough cookies- no instant citizenship. This is a no-brainer.
Couple this with the recent announcement by ICE that they will not respond to Arizona's requests except in cases of serious offenses; the removal of the 287(g) status of the rest of the the AZ LEA's; and you now have rendered ineffective what AZ was trying to accomplish...immigration enforcement.
Wing Nuts beware! The Native Americans might pick up on this "kick the illegals out" frenzy and all of you would have to go back to Europe.
@Mary,
Obama's "latest edict" as you call it effects less than 1,000 people a year --- most of them service members who have served honorably in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. If you really believe the Fox trash on the subject, you are an idiot.
Mr. Obama recent announcement that he will IMMEDIATELY allow children who were brought into the United States ILLEGALLY, will be able to stay and apply for work permits for....what....two years.....and would affect about 1,400,000 Illegal Aliens (Immigrants).
1,400,000 is a lot more than 1,000 Illegals a year.
Yep, watch out for MSNBC news.....it can make some folks lose their short term memory.
Further:
Yep, 35,662 is a lot more than 1,000 ("most of them service members").
Chris-749391....your "out of thin air" numbers and comments have been completely trashed.
You post a quote that doesn't mention any numbers at all to support the 1.4 million number. Generally, when you post a citation, it should be relevant to your comment. The following link states it affects as many as 800,000 people who arrived as children, not 1.4 million. At least we can all agree that the children shouldn't be punished.
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/06/15/president-obama-let-children-illegal-immigrants-avoid-deportation/andhGTWZtcf35T21dzq0nI/story.html
Edit: Your second link says "legal immigrants" serving in the military. Illegals are not permitted to serve technically, though it is possible there are a few.
@Ido,
You are a strranger to the truth. Instead of 1,400,000 as you state, it is around 1,000 a year. You obviously cannot read or you would have noted "if they meet certain criteria." You couldn't think your way out of a paper bag. The criteria are so strict that very few people make it --- mostly service members and kids about to graduate from college with GPAs above 3.2. My guess is that you wouldn't qualify.
And your statement that 35,6622 LEGAL immigrants serving in the armed forces is more that than the 400 or so who are ILLEGAL immigrants is correct, but irrelevant and stupid.
I'm curious: how many of you would work for LESS than minimum wage picking fruits and veggies? I worked in the agribusiness briefly and they were exempt from minimum wage laws so we worked for LESS than minimum wage. No benefits. No retirement. No minimum wage. Doing back breaking work most gringos would refuse. (BTW I am a legal "gringa").
Would you do that kind of work for LESS than minimum wage? Be honest.
If not, you may understand why the politicians turn a blind eye to illegal immigration.
lakerman...which "Native Americans" are you talking about? The ones that didn't won't the Europeans here or the ones that welcomed the Europeans?
Also, you do realize if you trace ancestry back far enough, Europeans and "Native Americans" are related, right? Are you implying they should kick their distant cousins out? If so, do you think the first "Native Americans" that migrated here and survived should be able to kick out the "Native Americans" that migrated over right behind them? Just exactly where do you subjectively draw that line?
(Actually, I don't want an answer. The questions are to show how friggin' stupid your comment was...)
WHAT? Not the stupid "who's gonna pick your vegetables" garbage again. Most crop selection can be mechanized like much of Europe does. We don't need people to do most of it anyway. Also, do you think Americans are too stupid to come up with a temporary guest worker program where people can come into the country legally and work? Be honest.
And I hope you also realize that Mexicans and Americans, if you go back far enough (and much less far than for Europeans and Native Americans), are also related.
All humans are related if you go back far enough. Like it or not, we are all distant cousins.
Also, I still believe it is politically incorrect to refer to anyone as a "Native American". Humans are not indigenous to the Americas.
The state of Arizona only passed this law to try to get the Federal government to help enforce federal laws of immigration but Obama does not want to anger potential voters so he chooses to ignore the law. I read every day about the violence in Mexico caused by US drug needs and it is hard to blame these peole from wanting to escape that area. There just needs to be some kind of control of the migration to the US which is what Arizona and others are asking our Federal Government to do.
Down: Obama has deported more illiegal alliens than Bush did. Obama has put more into border patrol and security than Bush did. Obama has done more for national security in general than Bush did. You might want to start listening to something other than the fox lie network.
Down, lakerman may think that is true, but it is a lie often told by liberals. DHS statistics show that the Bush Administration has deported 2X the number of illegals as deported by the Obama Administration.
Mr. Obama has now surpassed any previous President in allowing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Illegal Aliens to remain in the United States via Cabinet agency "new" regulation changes and NOT via Congressional procedures. This surpasses ANYTHING he has done to "deport" illegal Aliens (Immigrants).
And our borders are NOT secure.
Yep, time to learn the "truth" instead of using worn out Democratic talking points.
I don't care if President Obama has done more than all then Presidents before him put together. He took an OATH to THIS COUNTRY to UPHOLD IT"S LAWS, which he chooses not to now because he thinks he has a right as the President to not do. He must up hold laws he does not agree with an being in this Country ILLEGALLY is a CRIME. He has given orders to the Federal law enforcement agencies to not enforce the LAWS. That is an IMPEACHABLE action. No matter how trivial the crime as the President he can not give that order to not enforce a LAW. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL law of which he is a scholar so he says. He ignores the Constitution, his oath of office and now the Supreme Court!!!
NH ------ Your joking of course!
Obama has deported 1.06 million illegal immigrants through two-and-a-half years in office, Reuters reports. This puts him on pace for more deportations in his first term than George W. Bush's 1.57 million in eight years.
However, while 41% of those deported by Bush had criminal records, the proportion has risen slightly to 46% under Obama.
I agree with you, but you must realize that the Feds will do absolutely nothing to illegals when they are caught. All they will do is send them back to Mexico and in a few days they will be right back here.
It's nothing to do with Obama's not wanting to anger potential voters. It didn't start with Obama and won't end there either. It's a matter of $$$$.
I'm curious: how many of you would work for LESS than minimum wage picking fruits and veggies? I worked in the agribusiness briefly and they were exempt from minimum wage laws so we worked for LESS than minimum wage. No benefits. No retirement. No minimum wage. Doing back breaking work most gringos would refuse. (BTW I am a legal "gringa").
Would you do that kind of work for LESS than minimum wage? Be honest.
If not, you may understand why the politicians turn a blind eye to illegal immigration.
lakerman2...all the illegals deported by Bush and Obama together doubled don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the problem. Obama has deported primarily illegals convicted of crimes other than being in the country illegally. Do you know why? Because then he can look like he's actually doing something to people who can be easily fooled and the Hispanics can't really complain because the illegals are guilty of other crimes. Do you get it?
Those of us who can think can see through Obama like he is a plate glass window.
@ What?
Posting the same post more than once doesn't make what you say true...if you didn't like your wages, you could always go home.
It truely is amazing how much effort and money is being spent to prevent law enforcement from enforcing written federal immigration laws........Why are so many showing support for those who openly exhibit disdain for American law, the customary language and the American flag?
Since when did enforcing written law become optional ?......Since the last five presidents turned a blind eye to the millions sneaking into America illegally........And to think Homeland security was formed to keep America safe and unwanted foreigners out...........What a waste of money and resources Homeland Security is. How are they going to keep America safe from terrorist when 12 million people and tons of drugs slip by them unnoticed ?
What a dam shame this whole Arizona situation is. Arizona has a magnificent history that dates back centuries involving it native peoples (Indians), Spanish, Mexicans, etc...It is so rich in cultural diversity and history. Why not embrace this? Why have a group of white lunatic old farts screw this place up? As I said, it is a dam shame. What is going on down there is not patriotic, not American. It is mean-spirited and it stains our values as Americans..We are better then this!!!
Folks will be "embraced" when they follow the laws of the United States, and in particular Federal Immigration laws, instead of jumping the fence. Why don't they jump a fence into their own "home" country and not have the proper entry forms and see what happens to them.
"White lunatic old farts" ??? You just had to make this a "racial" issue. The issue is these folks violated United States Immigration Laws and should be held accountable.
It is a "dam shame" that people ignore United States Federal Laws. Wait a minute, they did that the moment they cleared the fence and landed on U.S. soil.
Come to America the right way! We love your food your people your life style. Follow the law or is that to hard to understand????
The principal problem with immigration laws structured as they are is that the scum drug dealers can bring their stuff in, be thrown back across the border, and be back the next day with another load. We have a friend in Phoenix who fears that machine gun battles are going start appearing in the Phoenix area. Why should we have to put up with this garbage in this country?
Texas Rangers and Highway Patrol have a new term for drug transporters who run for the Rio Grande as soon as they are spotted to avoid TEMPORARY detainment and forfeiture of their drugs. They drive INTO the river and swim for the Mexican side while boats pull the drug bundles out of the river for return to the Mexican side for another try the next day. The Rangers and THIP call it "splashdown" for the obvious reason.
Since Obama refuses to allow immigration law and drug law to be enforced, maybe he should go live in El Paso or some other point on the Rio Grande for 6 months and see how he likes being shot at by something besides words.
Who is Dennis Miller?
sic vita est...every single person who is responsible for the rich culture you describe, and who is here legally, as many have been for several generations, are very welcome to be here.
Don,
I think you were on some LSD trip when you posted...talk about incoherent!
Ranchers complain about the violence and trash around their ranches. They need to carry weapons - not in case they run into a wolf now, but because they might run into smugglers, who can be violent. Yes, people want to come here for a better lives, but we can not take everyone. We need to stop all immigration, legal and illegal until we can get Americans back to work. Besides with the Dream Act, these kids can go to college, but without a legal status they won't be able to work.
"Come in with papers or leave in a bag."
"Yeeeeeeeeeh haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"
As The Invasion of America via The Wide Open Mexican Border rolls on ...
Bat crazy Jan and her cronies who have stock in Arizona's for-profit prisons (that benefit financially from the "arrest anyone who looks different from us" law) has, once again, failed.
@AG99,
e-Verify is spotty at best. It uses very little immigration information, and tries to compare several different databases, including social security files. There are errors in as many as 30% of the composite records used for comparison. e-Verity is already used for all federally-supported welfare programs, including unemployment, food stamps, etc. If e-Verify can't find you there is an appeals process that allows you to show a birth certificate, passport, etc, and be "verified." Very very few illegal immigrants every collect any form of welfare. Most states now require a show of documentation before enrolling for school --- the problem with that is that there is a presumption of "legally present" that must be proven for children under five and that is tough.
Here is just one of thousands of quotes about the illegal immigrant/welfare myth:
"The Congressional Research Service points out in a 2007 report, undocumented immigrants, who comprise nearly one-third of all immigrants in the country, are not eligible to receive public “welfare” benefits — ever.
Legal permanent residents (LPRs) must pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems for approximately 10 years (40 quarters) before they are eligible to receive benefits when they retire. In most cases, LPRs can not receive SSI, which is available only to U.S. citizens, and are not eligible for means-tested public benefits until 5 years after receiving their green cards. Means-tested means that income on which SSI is paid is considered in computing benefits.
A 2007 analysis of welfare data by researchers at the Urban Institute reveals that less than 1 percent of households headed by undocumented immigrants receive cash assistance for needy families, compared to 5 percent of households headed by native-born U.S. citizens.
A 2007 analysis of U.S. Census data by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities makes clear that it is the U.S.-born, U.S.-citizen children of undocumented immigrants who are eligible for programs such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The analysis found that, between 1995 and 2005, the share of low-income, non-citizen immigrant children (either undocumented or legally present) who received Medicaid or SCHIP dropped from 36 percent to 30 percent."
It is now an FTC requirement that all points of service for any medical facility that accepts Medicaid or Medicare require a "definitive" government-issued picture ID prior to any service being received except in the case of imminent life-threatening injury or accident.
There are similar sets of numbers to show that illegal immigrants are much less users of public services of education and medical services for several reasons. 1) Illegal immigrants tend to be much healthier than their native-born peer group. 2) Most illegal immigrants are men and are unaccompanied. 3) Illegal immigrants avoid situations where IDs will be requested --- voting polls, emergency rooms, DMV offices, etc. 4) Illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central and South America are far more deeply distrustful of "government" than any Tea Party person ever thought of being --- with good reason.
The other offsetting issue is that illegal immigrants do pay taxes. All pay the most regressive taxes such as sales taxes and state and local fees. Most pay income taxes and Social Security (about 70%.) Illegal immigrants do not acquire any SSI or Medicare eligibility no matter how long they work --- SSI just keeps the money. Federal, state, and local governments just "confiscate" the billions that illegal immigrants pay into their coffers. This just about covers all services that all illegal immigrants receive, including deportation costs.
What is broken is the employer aspect. Many, many employers just go ahead and hire illegals because they can pay them far below minimum wage and completely disregard all state wage and hour laws. When a company like Armour Meats hires illegals, there are ineevitable raids by ICE. When a meat-packing plant is raided, usually around 200-250 illegals are caught. Armour is heavily fined for each illegal emplopyed. But Armour also gets to keep any "employment fees" that it charges the workers. And it is refunded the employer portion of Medicare and SSI. And it gets back the Unemployment Compensation premiums paid to the state and federal government. The refunds and confiscated monies mean that every time an illegal is caught at Armour, they make more than they are fined. The illegal is flown home at taxpayer expense. And he immediately starts looking for another "labor contractor" working for Perdue or Armour or simlar companies. As long as there is profit in illegals, American companies simply do not care. Illegals are a way of lowering wages for ALL American workers.
Oh my goodness. You did research and are knowledgeable about the subject.
Well done sir. You should save this wonderful post for the inevitable other threads
A lot of this is just the unique American paranoia running wild as has often been the case throughout the short but decidendly uncivil American history.
This country started out as Calvinists hating Catholics and Catholic hating Protestants. They quickly found that American Indians were easy pickings safter over 90% of them were dead from diseases that they white men brought. They every body hated the Irish and the Jews. Then it was all immigrants. Then Portuguese and Spanish. Then it was all Orientals that had been brought over to build the railroads at slave wages. Then during WWI it was German immigrants that were hated. And after WWI it was the Okies and Latinos and Jews before it moved on to the intense hatred of African-Americans trying to gain civil rights and even a tiny measure of equality. During WWII, they put over 100,000 American citizens of Japanese extraction in concentration camps, confiscated all their property and bank accounts and killed hundreds of them (but just hated people with German and Italian surnames.) Except in Hawaii where only Germans and Italians were rounded up. Now its Latinos and Muslims. The right-wingers have a busy history of hatred.
Ambrose Bierce defined "democracy" as "four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." The Founding Fathers feared democracy and the influence of religion as the two things most likely to kill this country. That's why they wanted a "firm wall" between church and state and why they only made one office, the House of Representatives, directly elected by the people and gave the House the shortest possible term of office. And they only did that as a way of giving the slave states more representation in Congress than the free states. If the Founding Fathers saw the haters today, they would throw up.
Chris: "What is broken is the employer aspect. Many, many employers just go ahead and hire illegals because they can pay them far below minimum wage and completely disregard all state wage and hour laws."
BINGO! In fact, the agribusiness does not even HAVE to "completely disregard all state wage and hour laws." When I worked for agribusiness they were in fact EXEMPT FROM ALL MINIMUM WAGE LAWS. EXEMPT! What do you think about that, folks?
"Section 2(B) requires police to check the immigration status of people they stop, detain or arrest for other legitimate reasons “if there’s reasonable suspicion” the person is in the country illegally
========================================================================
As an American citizen that lives in Arizona and is Hispanic -- I just hope Arpaio stops me and asks for my papers -- I would like to pay off my mortgage on his nickel.
Or you could just show them your drivers license and proof of insurance rather then looking to start something with a guy who already has a tough enough job because we both know Arpaio ain't gonna be the guy stopping you. Or like you said above, you could try to win a free ride. I'm sure there are enough scumbags lawyers in Az that you won't have any trouble finding one to take the case.
You need to live in Arizona to understand the post.
Over the last few years there have numerous cases of "racial profiling" -- that is what I am referring to. It is not a "free ride" --- it is a lesson to the Maricopa County Sheriff.
Arizona has a long legislative history to be proud of. Its major contribution to the law has been its opposition to Daylight Savings Time and opposition to the MLK holiday. Both failed and both, like this racist episode, cost the Arizona taxpayers millions of dollars in the process.
Ruger...it's OK for an Arizona cop to ask an American for his ID, but it's a gross violation of human rights to ask an illegal for his/her papers.
Doesn't that make perfect sense to you?
Yeah, Joe. The cops are just getting the green light to randomly stop BROWN people. You gotta give them something like randomly stop everyone, including WHITE people to check something like, oh, their gun registration before you'll get majority of Arizona to see your point of view.
I wonder how this will work in Florida. Under an exemption there are no Cuban illegals if they touch land. Why are there different laws for other Latinos?
That's not completely right. You're talking about federal law. Under Clinton's amended "wet feet, dry feet" federal policy, Cubans who make it to shore (not just in Florida) are still illegal. However, they MAY be permitted to remain in the U.S. (not always), and may qualify for expedited "legal permanent resident" status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_feet,_dry_feet_policy
The reason it's different for Cubans dates back to the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, which resulted from the Cold War and Cuba's relationship with the former Soviet Union.
The open borders lobby and their corporate /government allies will stop at nothing to washout the last vestiges of value from US citizenship.
The opponents, including Holder and Half&Half, will only be happy when an illegal is stopped and is given a gun by law enforcement; providing they're transporting other illegals or drugs.
Okay, so the police can ask for immigration papers, but they cannot do anything about it. So, why would they even want to ask? The "show me your papers" provision, on its own, is completely useless. If they are stupid enough to enforce it, it will only result in a lot of lawsuits for Arizona.
Get a job Libtard/turd.
The reason the Supreme Court punted on the one remaining provision, was that they had to wait until someone tries to enforce the law. As it stands, law enforcement is going to be sued no matter what it does. Latinos will sue for illegal racial profiling, and Arizonians will sue because of a provision that law enforcement may be sued if it is believed that they are not enforcing the law.
As an attorney, I have no idea how there is standing to sue in the latter situation. In any case, it already looks like civil rights organizations are taking the last part of the law back to court.
@EffortPA,
The SCOTUS left that portion standing only because it has not taken effect yet. They will not overturn something that is already under constraints by lower courts. At this point is is likely that Federal District Courts will release the constraints, citing this weeks decision and them immediately ban it once it is implemented. There were a number of warnings such as the warning that if you arrest a person for jaywalking and you determine that they are illegal immigrants you cannot hold them longer than you would hold a jaywalker. All the Federal government has to do is just ignore Arizona and they are automatically in deep lawsuit city. Alabama just put out the word to all law enforcement authorities to immediately cease enforcement of its new immigration law which has already cost the state over $80 million in direct losses and perhaps $200 million in indirect losses (and climbing.) {{{{Roll Tide Roll}}}}}}
Clotho...based on the cops I know, it may become unlikely that officers will ask anyone for proof out of fear of having a potential racial profiling black mark on their record. Two cops I know told me they let some minorities get away with traffic violations towards the end of the month out of fear of going over a limit and that being discovered by civil rights groups.
Maybe Arizona takes all the folks they have determined to be here illegally and holds them for a semi-annual trip to D.C. Just take 'em to the White House, open the van doors and tell 'em out ya go. Then turn around and drive on back to AZ.
Maybe we could call it the "Hope and Change" flight.
That is good. I like the idea.
The only way to get rid of the criminals is to get rid of their leader, Odumbo.
Arizona taxpayers better be plenty bigoted, because they will pay deeply for their racist policies. I guess they have money to waste on promoting their hatred.
They spent happily millions trying to stop the federal MLK holiday and many millions more trying to stop Daylight Savings Time.
King Xantos of Thasos,
From birth blind,
Decreed as unnecessary luxuries
Those things that men call lamps.
What's wrong with showing the paper? I'm an immigrant and I got no problem of showing my legal paper, matter of fact I'm pround of it to show that I'm here legally.
I am native born American and have no such papers to show. I have a social security card (not acceptable) and a driver's license that doesn't prove anything. I do have a passport, but I do not carry it with me at all times. If I am stopped because I look like an illegal Irish immigrant, I would have nothing that would have kept me from being jailed in Arizona under their law.
There is NO database of American citizens. There is no list of people eligible to be in this country. There is not even a list of Native Americans. There is nothing that can be accurately checked.
Your papers please! No papers, well you can wait in jail. In Alabama they have arrested executives from both the Mercedes plant near Tuscaloosa and a Honda executive from the plant in Pell City. Both left the country after being released from jail. The Chinese government has recently cancelled a plant that was supposed to be located north of Mobile citing a "hostile environment" in Alabama and leaving the Alabama and Mississippi taxpayers stuck with over $200 million in taxes for infrastructure and various "expenses."
What papers does anyone carry to show where they was borned all I have is a drivers license and doesn't say where I was born. A person that was born in the USA doesn't carry a birth certicate with them at all times I not for illegals being here but I do see problems with Arizona's carry your paper law— Arizona's law makers acts as if they are all mental cases
What is about Illegal that ILLEGALS don't understand? We are the only major country that allows "ILLEGALS" to remain in country. All the people that likes to hire illegals don't want to see any laws removing illegals from the US. Come in my front door ,not sneak in my back door and then lay up in my living room wanting me to feed and house you free. Get the hell out and go back to your country.
"Show Me Your Papers" in the land of the "Free & the Brave"? Sounds more like Nazi Germany- God help the USA
Sounds to me like "license and proof of insurance, please." I go through it when ever I cash a check, get pulled over, rent a car, buy insurance, purchase alcohol or tobacco products, go to the casino, board an airplane, register my vehicle, buy a fishing or hunting license.....You get the picture.
But RugerSR9c, you are using examples in which you are actively making a purchase or conducting an activity like driving that requires ID. In America (at least for 225+ years), nobody could force anyone to carry documentation for simply walking on the sidewalk. The police are not permitted to detain you and ask for ID if you are not committing any crime.
If Republicans had their way, brown people would now have to carry their paperwork whenever they left their homes, even if it's just to walk the dog. That is most assuredly not something we want in America.
The way I read this, they can't just ask, you have to be detained for something else. I fail to see the problem. Oh, and what would you call police DUI traffic blocks? Found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court and they not only restrict freedom of movement, everybody in the car is required to show ID. It's pretty simple, behave in a legal manner or break the law of the land. Just don't cry foul play when you are caught.
Police are allowed to ask you to see ID whenever they please including while walking down the sidewalk.
I was In Rome Italy a few years ago . Had to show my passport ,when going to the Vatican City. Had to carry my password at all times. Our guides suggested that we carry it at all times.
AND it will happen.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/
Maybe we should just shut down the Border Patrol, the ICE, the INS, the BATFE, and the state police in the border states, and just put up "welcome" signs all along the border. Pave some roads that lead from the border to the welcome centers. Make everyone who walks, swims, drives, flys or crawls across the border an immediate U.S. citizen, and give them a lifetime membership in the Democratic party. Take their pictures, and give them drivers' licenses for whatever state they want, and voter registration. Buy their drugs from them and provide trucks to deliver them to whatever dealers are waiting for them. Put them all on a lavish pension, give them free housing, medical care, free cars, a lifetime supply of gas, meal allowances, and all utilities paid. Then they can all keep voting the people back into office that are plundering the rest of us for the money we earn, if we are lucky enough to have jobs. Oh - wait, we are already doing that.
I love the headline and the story - Arizona's Immigration Law. More bias reporting by MS-NBC. It is a state law dealing with illegal foreigners. Nothing else.
Is "making up the news" a required course for all MS-NBC news reporters?
It is Arizona's immigration law. What are you talking about?
FILE FOIAs at your local town halls and DEMAND they release the names and addresses of illegals in your towns.
Local government doesn't have that information.
If you can be required to show proof of auto insurance or even a driver's license when stopped, why not citizenship or legal immigration status? I would be fine with the U.S. Gov't issuing a citizenship card and having to produce it if stopped for some legal infraction.
ILLEGAL immigrants from any other nation have no right to be in the United States and should be deported regardless of circumstances. Can't we be honest with ourselves and admit the only reason we are having this argument is because of our Mexican neighbors who have been allowed amnesty too many times by weak willed politicians looking for votes and now the Mexicans have a voting block sympathetic to other Mexicans. And before anyone whines, this is not a racial statement it is a statement of fact.
If you lived in AZ you would know that there is too much "racial profiling" done by Arpaio's goons. He will ONLY ask for papers if someone looks hispanic.
Arpaio and the MCSD are the only agency doing their job and putting a fear in the Illegals A**. Go Gittem Sheriff Joe. This will not stop Him. In this day and age of Terrorism and Technology, profiling is NECESSARY. Here in AZ, were on the boarder with Mexico, that's our main problem with illegals. So what should we be looking for, Germans! Profiling is done everywhere by everyone in some form or another. Even by our Govt.
Joe-5114861
Um, that's kind of the idea Joe. The typical illegal alien in Arizona is not a German speaking blond haired, blue eyed, or a black guy who is dressed nice and speaks perfect English with an Ebonic twist.
Generally they are about 5'2'', wearing a cowboy hat, dressed very plainly, don't speak English well, or at all, and are in groups of 4 or more in a van or pick-up truck. They can often be spotted squatting behind dumpsters at gas stations that have no bathrooms.